In the midst of all the chaos that sprung about during the class decision making exercise, I actively collaborated with a couple of groups to come to a general consensus of what the next exam would be like and what to do with the exam that was handed back to us. I did not perform too poorly on the test but after hearing that the class average was roughly 68%, I realized that many of my fellow classmates probably did badly on the exam. In that aspect, I felt that I accommodated my fellow classmates by going along with decisions that would help improve their grade. I chose to collaborate with others and accommodate people around me because I felt that it would benefit me and the class as well. The agreement that the class came up with were curving the first test, adding extra credit to the first exam, dropping the lowest of the two exam grades, and stating the number of correct answers that would be on the multiple multiple choice questions for the next exam. An alternative way to better conduct the class decision making exercise would have been choosing a leader or figurehead from the start to facilitate the class and have the class collectively decide what we should do with exam one and how to treat the second one, just like we did in the last 15 minutes of class. I believe this strategy would have been a better idea because as a group we would have been more productive with our time and perhaps we could have came up with more potential decisions that could have increased our chances of doing better on our next exam. Moreover, conflicts and confusion would be minimized; animosity and personality clashes evaded.
