Everyone Must Vote

When the class received their results for the first test, many were not pleased, including me.  I knew I didn’t do as well as I could have, but I definitely wasn’t expecting to get as low as I did.  Thankfully, the professor offered us the opportunity to collectively, as a class, come up with a decision on how exactly we wanted to be graded and how to reformat the test by the end of class.  Many were pleased with this task, but as time went by and compromise among about 80 people seemed nearly impossible, people’s attitudes went from “Alright, let’s get this done!  I need this;” to “We’re getting nowhere fast.” 

When we started conversing about how to make the final decision package to hand in to the professor, immediate chaos erupted.  Small group conversations were going on from all areas of the room.  But, not long after though, one male figure stood up and went up to the board to tell the class we should get some ideas down together.  He admitted his handwriting wasn't great, so another male figure immediately volunteered to lead and write down everyone’s ideas on the board.  It started alright; people were raising their hands and waited to be called on before speaking in defense for their idea.  During this time, I took the accommodation approach.  I saw the matter as being more important to everyone else rather than to myself, and I figured that I would let everyone else work it out and see what happens from there since I felt a bit timid.  Perhaps my silence should be viewed as the avoidance approach, since silence can be taken as withdrawal from the group, but I don’t believe I was withdrawn.  I paid careful attention and had faith that the class would come to a consensus eventually, and I figured I’d let them work it out first and add in my input later when the tide cools down if needed. 

Unfortunately, some students got antsy and started shouting (without being called on first) and this caused a domino effect because others would do the same to get their point across.  It then became impossible to comprehend any one person with the near madness that started.  Seeing chaos erupt more so than in the beginning caused me to switch to the avoidance approach, which made me withdraw my attention from the class “discussion.”  I thought about raising my hand to put in my input, but with the tide so high at this point, I’d be overcome by those who shouted louder than me, and there was no point.  I lost interest and just reverted to hearing people shouting rather than listening to what people actually were saying.  

Another person in the room actually got up to leave because he didn’t see the “discussion” going anywhere, but the professor asked him to stay, and he reluctantly did so.  Fortunately, this changed the tide and mood.  Everyone saw this student almost leave since nothing was agreed upon and knew that if people continued to argue for their self-interests, that was how the class would end – with no collective decision and no gain for anyone.  Then, the first male figure who stood up, from the beginning, took charge in the front, and things became more efficient.  People began collaborating their ideas, bargaining (like with the T/F section for the next test), and agreeing to cross out some unpractical ideas.  As I saw the tide changed, I began taking the compromise approach.  Everyone’s opinion mattered and was heard.  When I agreed with an idea, I made sure to vote for it and vise versa.  I didn’t literally speak up at the end, but my arm was my voice in the matter, and it was how I used my right to vote.  Thanks to the two male leaders (the catalysts), the male student who almost left (who caused the turning point) and the class’s collaborative effort, a final decision package was proposed to the professor and approved! 

There are a couple of ways that this conflict could have been handled better.  When the two male leaders took charge, both of them should have stayed in front – one could write while the other could take charge of the group discussion.  When dictated to, it’s sometimes hard to write on the board because it’s different than writing with pen and paper.  I know that when I write on the board, it’s harder to get down what someone is saying because I’m not used to writing on a vertical surface, so it requires more concentration.  Perhaps that is why the one who was writing couldn’t get down everyone’s ideas quick enough??  The other male leader could have dealt with the group interaction from the beginning because he did a great job controlling the madness towards the end and seemed more vocal than the other leader.  So, the original method of seeking everyone’s individual responses and then making the decision could have played out better had it been organized with more leadership, since we did have a sufficient amount of time.  Combining the two male leaders’ capabilities (one who made sure everyone’s opinion was heard and another who controlled the group and encouraged everyone to get the task completed) would have been better than having them separate during the decision making process. 

We could have also split up into groups in the beginning, set up a time limit for each group to come up with their ideas, write down the final decisions for each group on the board afterwards and vote/compromise collectively among those.  This method would have ensured that everyone’s opinion was heard, even the quiet ones, throughout the entire process.