Within the class activity on “decision,” I believe there was balanced mixture of all the different ways to handle conflict. It is presumed to be that way since our class is so large; therefore we needed a mediator to gather the various approaches. This came about within minutes of the professor initiating the discussion between us, which in turn, proved to serve us well. Once the mediator was established we were then able to start communicating our ideas. Unfortunately, not everybody’s thoughts were being written down which was not fair and discouraged individuals from further contributing to this “agreement” that 100% of the class was to abide by. Noticing this habit of the moderator-only accepting ideas that “he” thought was right-and attempting to voice out an opinion myself (which got shut down), I soon decided to withdraw myself from the conflict along with a few other classmates. This avoidance approach that I decided to take was based on the chaos that was going on and me already being disappointed from the grade I received on the test; a big mistake on my part. I have learned before to always maintain composure in order to achieve results, no matter the situation. I also don’t like when people don’t listen to me, so that may have angered me more lol.
An alternative method that I believe would have settled the chaos between all the members would have been various groups coming up with their own proposals. Once the moderator emerges he/she splits the class into different groups and asks that each group cooperatively come up with their own proposals. Now within each group we will have another moderator who will guide that discussion and ultimately serve as the spokesperson for their respective group. The argument has now boiled down to ONE central moderator to come up with a conclusion along with the several representatives from the groups. This method of handling conflict will eliminate the massive interruptions and yelling between members. It is more organized and controlled while maintaining the equality of the final decision.
In sum, our class activity was successful due to the ability for the one individual to adapt to the changing situations. He began to notice that the initial moderator was being bias (student’s complaining), so he went up and took over. As a whole, our class was competing to win. We needed to come to one conclusion that would benefit every individual. It may have been a ton of students, but we were essential ONE group with the same goal in mind. The leader provided the accommodation, not being selfish and considering everybody’s ideas. Again, we did not solely rely nor act on one approach; it was more of a combination.
I can feel your frustration of not having a chance to give your views. The noise level in the class at times was out of proportion. I haven't experienced anything like that. The last time I had a similer experience was when I was in high school. although i agree with you with most of your views, one in which I don't agree was with the 1st moderator not taking the view of everyone. I taught it was difficult for him to take everyones views because some people where just screaming and there was no order in the class. At the end I guess most of us were happy with the outcome.
ReplyDeleteVote or Die! I am very glad to hear that I was not the only person who felt that way. Within any group of people there will be multiple ways of handling conflict, and as you point out, our class was not a deviation from the norm. We all played different roles that are common within the typical scheme of group decision making. Some of us were very passionate about our positions and thoughts, while others were less vocal. There is nothing worse that a moderator who is not moderating, or rather is not moderating impartially. As you say, you originally were vocal and tossing out ideas, but eventually became quiet; That is very interesting because I do not know if that would lead you to being an "avoidance traited" individual. But rather you assumed that trait because of the situation that you were put in. I agree with your idea about various groups working together and determining their own proposals. Maybe an even more efficient way to do this would be to have people with certain grades determine parts of a proposal they would like to see, and then integrate the different ideas across grade levels to construct a single proposal that everyone has a say and representative notion in. However, the only problem with that idea is that Prof K probably would not have allowed the proposal as it would be far to "unreasonable", and we might be forced to curtail our ideas greatly. This would not have been a good thing. I agree with you that when a second moderator took over, we as a group were far more efficient in achieving results that nearly everyone seemed on board with (or at least voted for). Maybe if we do this again in the future, we as a group will be even more efficient.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completly. When the second moderator took over, he was more understanding of the class, which led us to work better. He took what people were offering, and walked us through the outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the part of having small groups. Like my blog, the US government model works. If we had small groups and elected one person (senator), we can have that person speak on our behalf. We would have been much more efficient.
I think both those guys that got up to coordinate the ideas did a great job. It's not easy trying to organize so many ideas, especially when it’s the ideas of energetic college students.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the small groups, it sounds good but I really think there would have still been conflict between the groups. I think we would still need one person to lead each group and another at the front to communicate between groups.
I felt the same way you did. I thought the second guy that took over the leadership role had a better understanding of what we could get and he was more realistic of what the Professor would allow. In the begging everyone was shouting out ideas and this was getting us nowhere. Like I said on another blog I'm not sure that breaking the class up into groups would help the situation. I think that would take to much time for five or six groups to start having proposing their own ideas and then give them to the guy in the front of the class. I guess the next step would be for the leader i the front to present those ideas again to the other groups vote on them again. I could be wrong, but it just seems like this is a lot to do in a small amount of time. I do not agree with the idea 84kane said about letting people with the highest grades determine what we should do. I think that idea would be unfair to the rest of the class. I know what they were trying to say that they have the best grades and should be given first preference but I think its was more fair to give every person, no matter what their grade was, to have a equal say. (that's democracy) I too with drew from the process early on because of the low grade I got and was feeling very depressed. But in my case as the process started to get better and when i heard that we would drop the lowest grade, i started to become a little more active has my hope began to rise. It seems that after reading a few of the blogs on this subject was not a lone in feeling depressed and quite.
ReplyDeleteAlthough they were a lot of good ideas on this subject by students I still feel that we did pretty well with the deal we got and the Professor said he was surprised how well we did. But I think if this situation happens again in the future we will be ready and will get a even better deal.
I also agree with you in that the second moderator was definitely more effective, and was able to get nearly everything done in the few minutes we had left compared to the other moderator who spent almost the whole class getting nowhere.
ReplyDeleteYour alternative method seems like a good idea but it could've become very messy with groups spending alot of time forming their ideas and then finally when it came down to it, it would be a clash between groups of people instead of just the ones who felt the need to voice out something for their own best interests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the second moderator was much better. He really took a commanding presence among the entire class, whereas for the first moderator, I think he started off well, but then became overwhelmed with all the shouting and ideas that came along as the class progressed. About splitting the class into smaller groups, I believe that that might not be such a good idea as some might believe. The reason for this is because, I think it would have turned out the same as without the smaller groups. The small groups would have their ideas and then start arguing with other groups. It might be less chaotic though, and I do agree with the post above mine, that more students would participate. We should try that next time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the small groups idea. I withdrew as well, and I definitely would have been more Collaborative if I were in a small group where my voice would be heard. It would have significantly cut down on the chaos as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's also good that you specified that each small group should have its own leader/moderator. That would have been instrumental in the success of this plan.