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.
5 comments:
I totally agree, we should have just chosen someone to lead the discussions right from the beginning. We would have created a better environment for solutions. Even if we would have created groups, someone ultimately needs to be in charge. For example, we could have had a few groups that work each on their ideas. In the second part of the class every group could have introduced their proposals and then together we would find the best agreement that benefits most. Some would have to compromise certain wishes but we all would benefit in one way or another.
I think it is a great idea to choose a figurehead in the begining of the class before the class discussion, so there wouldn't be much chaos during the process of coming up with the solution. However, then the problem would be who is the right one that we all agree with to lead us? Just by looking at the reaction of many people, I guess everyone has his or her opinion, and everyone is equal, so figuring out a person who we all agree to will be difficult. But, if there is anyone who we all agree with among us, then the process of having a solution would not seem so chaotic.
I agree with both your points. I didn't do too bad on the test either so after everyone agreed to curving, I was willing to accommodate whatever other changes people wanted to make. But I also agree if we picked someone to lead from the very beginning then we would end up being a lot more organized and probably would of came up with a decision a lot quicker.
hey, i agree that we probably should've chosen a leader from the beginning, but at the same time i disagree. i feel like the same thing would've happened to that leader as what happened to Albert. eventually people started aiming their anger and frustrations toward him. but i definitely see your point of view too. i also didn't do too poorly on the exam, so i also took the accomodating approach. anything the prof kurpis would've let us have would've been good enough for me!
I agreed on choosing a leader too. I feel that if we have chose a leader at the beginning, we could have come up with more changes for the next exam and I feel that we could have save more time.
Post a Comment