While the tests were being given out, the room was full of sighs. For some, it was like dreams were shot down. Once we were told what we were to do, I knew it would be difficult regardless of which way it was going to be handled. It was chaos from the very beginning until someone named themselves a leader.
Out of the five ways people act when they encounter a decision making conflict, I chose “accommodation.” Personally, I was fine with the test the way it was. It was very clear that not many people agreed with me so I was open to everyone’s suggestions and was eager to listen to their proposals. Taking the first test showed me what to expect for the next one and now I know how to study for it.
I feel that most of the class chose “compete to win.” There were many people that were arguing with others that didn’t approve of their other classmates’ ideas. Coming to a unanimous decision was no where near easy. The back and forth arguing continued until most of the class realized that if we don’t come to an agreement on something then we get nothing. This is when some people started to accommodate others and compromise.
I think the only way this could have been done quicker is if there was one leader who was reported to by a small group of leaders that listened to a designated group of students. Although a unanimous decision would still be difficult to get, there would be more order and things may have gone a little smoother.
I think number of people were too many to be able to make a huge decision like that and with only an hour to decide.
ReplyDeleteI also chose accommodating way of behavior and in my opinion too many people were not willing to compromise. It's understandable from a point of view of people who got really bad grades to argue for a curve or an extra credit assignment but the test structure....I think some people should have been more accommodative. Indeed, as you said, we probably came to a decision just because the time constraint was there and playing "all or nothing" was not the best strategy for our situation. And I completely support your idea about having a leader from small groups to make the process less distractive.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I see with individual leaders for small groups is that the communication between everyone is limited. The whole class would be set up in small groups all creating there own ideas, something similar would be like the U.N. I think the chaos would still be there, just like in the U.N., due to the fact that not everyone is sharing their ideas with everyone else. Your voice is only heard by a limited few.
ReplyDeleteI agree, only a number of people raised their voice. Although it makes sense that each person had a different situation, so that some of us had a different arguments and urgency. Our discussion was somewhat unorganized, and confusing at the end.
ReplyDeletei think the compete to win people were necessary because they were vocal and maybe gave other students a reason to voice their opinions. I noticed some students didnt have much to say until they heard someone suggest something that they did not like. I felt myself being somewhat accomodating as well.
ReplyDelete