Our class was a perfect chaos. Everyone had their own opinions. Yet, somehow, we managed to come to a final decision. I don’t think everyone was perfectly satisfied with our final list though…
It was the "limited-time" parameter that made most of us accommodate to the list at hand, myself included. I doubt anyone who didn’t like the list, would have said so at the very end and run the risk of breaking unanimity and thus, scrap a whole class’ worth of effort. That, I think, is one approach all of us shared in that classroom.
Personally, I was going for “Compete to win” over the removal of essay. But as soon as I realized how daunting the task of convincing everyone was, I soon slipped into avoidance. By the mid-way point of class, I was already repeating glances at the clock and thinking about the pleasures of a certain intoxicating beverage. In my mind: “This is not going to happen…”
Although I gave up on my point, I did not give up on the task at hand. I tried suggesting alternatives and helped in ways I saw best-fit. Though, I was careful not to do too much of what I saw best-fit as my definition of “best-fit” at that moment was heavily biased towards the singularity of the removal of the essay.
Hindsight being 20-20, the quickest way to tackle our problem would probably have come from us breaking down into smaller groups, addressing similar opinions and barter out a list that would suit everyone’s needs. I am sure that ordeal would still be just as chaotic as the actual approach we took in class; however, it would reduce conflicts between classmates. If we had predetermined a time when we would deal with conflicts in an orderly fashion, the emotional impact of the conflicts would have been significantly lower and thus, would allow for quicker compromise or accommodation, which in turn would allow for a quicker decision.
This method would have been more efficient for our case. It would also have been very methodical, boring and easy to forget… I like our actual approach better; at least, the chaos of it all has sealed different concepts of decision making in my mind. Now, just have to make sure the seal doesn’t break before the next exam.
Thank you for your time.
To be very honest Gaurab, I am unsure whether breaking into smaller groups would actually be beneficial. Yes as a concept it definitely does sound more more feasible but practically, if I had to base it on the experience that some of the smaller groups had in the "egg-breaking" class, it would simply cause more chaos. But on the other hand, I agree with you that it would bring in more ideas and hopefully a better proposal in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the way we worked was better and a lot more fun. I sure did "what john does" (in your words) during this process.
Overall a good read! Have fun!
I agree to an extent with Gaurab; I said in my post that breaking down into smaller groups may be a better option, becaue, as you said, I think better idea would com out of it. As far as conflict, I'm not sure how much that would be lessened. We are looking for the best idea, though..
ReplyDeleteI said a similar thing on my blog post about breaking down into smaller groups. We would have one representative for each smaller group. So each representative would get together in the end and decide the final outcome. The class as a whole would not have a say in this last decision as they would forfeit that responsibility to their representative. I know it doesn't sound very "democratic" but this is basically how our Congress works.
ReplyDeleteI am agree with you that breaking into smaller sub group would be a better idea to get best result. I also compromised in the essay part.
ReplyDelete