Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/2014
Moderating Philosophy Statement During our deliberation unit, I had the opportunity to moderate our group's discussion on higher education reform. From my experience as a moderator, I would characterize my moderating philosophy as a “hands-off” approach. I feel that my strengths as a moderator were the ability to frame the discussion and the ability to allow the conversation to flow naturally. At the beginning of my moderating session, I tried to present the argument from both sides, and then let the conversation flow from there. I only intervened once, when we were both going off topic and ignoring one of the facets of the argument we had yet to consider. I steered the group towards talking about diversity instead of the path we had gone on, as they were digressing and had been focusing solely on the “moral code” ideas that were espoused in the second part of the issue brief. The main challenge I faced as a moderator was participating in the discussion while still acting as a moderator. It was difficult to try to participate in the discussions, because as the moderator it felt like I should refrain from injecting my own opinions into the discussion, since a moderator should remain relatively impartial. At the same time, however, I wanted to be an active participant in the aforementioned deliberations. As the deliberations wore on, I got better at distancing myself and acting as a moderator, while still throwing in my own opinions when appropriate. I think I grew in my abilities as a moderator. Whenever the group started regularly digressing, I tried to refocus the group and turn the discussion to diversity, a subject we had not yet discussed. I summarized the issue guide and set up the upcoming discussion, but then stated my own opinion as to how I see the issue, and this approach seemed to start off the deliberations much better than my previous approach had done. This meant it was not necessary for me to do much to keep the deliberations on topic.
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/2014
Deliberation Evaluation Through the in-class deliberations on higher education reform, I was able to experience and reflect on the process of deliberation and how it can be used to think through an issue. My inclass group was guided through our deliberations by the Civic Issues Forum format and guide on the topic, and while our deliberations were not perfect, they did a good job of dissecting the issue and discussing it from multiple viewpoints, creating strong deliberations.
1. Create a solid information base My group was very good at creating an information base. In our discussion we liked to occasionally reference or look up facts, like trying to find the percentage of the budget that Penn State spends on research. We also shared many personal opinions and stories that were relevant to the issue. When we were talking about increasing the number of STEM graduates through emphasizing teaching over research; the engineers in the group shared their opinions on ineffective teachers they had experienced, and the rest of the group talked about their poor teachers in other areas. Later on I, as someone who was cyber-schooled for 2 years in elementary school, shared my opinion on how online classes could be used to balance out unfairness, and increase the amount of people with access to college education, as I had experienced both good and bad online classes. I was able to share that if we worked hard to make good online classes, from my experience they could be almost as good, if not just as good, as regular classes. We were not lax in any way about creating an information base for our debate.
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/2014
2. Prioritize the key values at stake We also tended to talk about values frequently, and respect the values others held. This ties in with our sharing our experiences, as we listened to and respected each other’s values. Whenever we were discussing degrees, we managed to talk through our ideals, and some of us brought in our dislike for the stigma on those who didn't go to college. We didn't really disagree much, but some people brought in opinions that others were not strongly for or against. Our group was relatively homogeneous in background – we are all Penn State honors students so we are all strong academics, so we did not represent those who struggle with academics. 3. Identify a broad range of solutions A downside of this homogeneous nature of our group was the relative lack of variety in our proposed solutions. While we did come up with several different solutions, most of them were relatively similar, and there were only usually two or three opinions on any single topic, and they weren't normally that diverse. Our best day of discussion in this manner was the first day, as STEM students had different opinions on how, and whether, STEM should be promoted, and different ideas about how to improve STEM programs at college in general, and PSU in particular. 4. Weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions When we were considering the options we came up with, we managed to always come up with several pros and cons to every solution. Most of the notes we took show how our discussions would generate an idea with some support, and then identify arguments against it. On some of the days, especially the fourth day, when we compared a lot of our ideas, we
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/2014
were able to point out the relative strengths and flaws of each plan. When we were talking about improving STEM, we had two main types of ideas: some to improve the quality, and others that were focused on increasing the number of students in STEM fields. 5. Make the best decision possible While we had little trouble comparing our decisions, my group, and from what I can tell, both of the other groups, had trouble coming to a final decision. Our ability to see pros and cons of options seemed to hinder more than help our ability to make any concrete decisions. The one decision we were able to come to was in our STEM deliberations, as we agreed that we needed to “make STEM sexy.” People already know that STEM jobs tend to allow a person to earn an above-average salary, and there is support for these degrees. After weighing the options we decided that we needed to remove the biggest blights on STEM, such as the weed-out attitude, and the focus on hiring professors who excel in research rather than teaching skills that often results in beginning students being taught by professors who are well-versed in their subject, but may not be able to communicate it at the entry level that freshmen need. 6. Adequately distribute speaking opportunities For the most part, our group was very well balanced, but it was almost impossible to get one person to share their opinion at all. While everyone had their own turn to be quiet on a subject, this member of our group wouldn't participate much even when we tried to encourage them. Most of their rare contributions were simply statements of concurrence with the rest of the group’s opinions. For everyone else though, while certain people dominated the conversation, everyone got a chance to make a comment at least on every subject, and we
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/2014
all got our points across. The non-STEM people even took some of our STEM ideas, and extrapolated their effect, as saying they would help other majors as well, by decreasing dropout rates. 7. Ensure mutual comprehension Our group was also good at communicating ideas to each other. We explained our ideas, and all of our members would explain their ideas about and positions on each issue. 8. Consider other ideas and experiences We spent a lot of time talking about personal experiences as well. We would always debate our ideas, but we would nonetheless consider others. Whenever we were talking about any serious plan for improving college education, we were never at the extremes. We would always consider those in disagreement, and the ideas at the extremes would usually be tempered by the other parties in our deliberations. 9. Respect other participants We maintained high respect for each other throughout, and though we had many disagreements, we still were able to argue rationally, and understand the other people's opinions, even if we didn't agree with them. Most of the time, the Civic Issues Forum's guide helped us to think through our ideas, and while it did its job of giving us information, and driving us through the many facets of the issue, it sometimes felt like it was limiting our discussions, because it listed a series of ideas that we felt like we had to choose between, even though it wasn't exhaustive. It also presented extreme opinions, that seemed ridiculous in certain ways, but the guide was nonetheless much more helpful than hurtful.
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
Reflection on Participation There are many challenges faced by an online discussion that will not be faced by an equivalent real-world deliberation. Deliberation can be both much easier, and much harder, online than face-to-face. A main downside of online deliberation that was avoided because of the setting of our deliberations was the problem of anyone being able to participate. While this can also be a good thing, the ability for anyone to join a discussion allows people to come in from other places and drive the conversation off track or to “troll” the discussion using their anonymity. Avoiding this requires a high degree of moderation if the inclusion of everyone is not to drive the deliberation off track. More relevant to our deliberation is the ability to ignore points others made. It is much easier to ignore others opinions online, as the internet slang TLDR (Too Long Didn't Read) attests to. In a formal setting, it hard to skip someone's argument without being rude. People don't walk out of a discussion while someone else is speaking without a good reason, but in an online discussion, it is easy to ignore someone. My writing style may not be well-suited to online discussions, as it didn't seem to draw discussion to itself. I tended to write longer comments, and not the type of comments other people were writing. I also was not in the majority opinion of the threads I commented on. Its length and message probably discouraged responses. It was also posted relatively late, and this may have exacerbated the lack of response. As for the deliberations held by other people, most comments seemed not like a dialogue, but like a comment with a string of various-length “I agree”’s attached to it. This is partially because people tended to read and respond to those people who they agreed with, instead of those they disagreed with. This meant the discussion was not especially productive. There was
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
little to no information gained from people simply agreeing with each other, and it would have been much nicer if there was a stronger back-and-forth between the different opinions. This is another consequence of the online format, as it seems rude to start by disagreeing with someone, as it is not as if they are addressing you; you have to chose to disagree, while in a face-to-face discussion it is much easier to disagree with someone, as you are there with them, and have a different idea, not seeking out their idea to disagree with. As previously stated, this discussion benefited from being in a closed-off RCL discussion format. Everyone was there for a reason, and the posts were on topic. However, maybe allowing more people with strong opinions to contribute would have generated a more dynamic conversation. One other benefit that was also a hindrance is the anytime/anyplace nature of the deliberations. The benefit was that the discussions could bridge gaps in time and space and be done at a person's leisure. The problem with this is that replies were not immediate, and that the deliberations may not have been the person's prime focus at the time. The deliberation was not created to be the only thing happening, and ideas can be lost when someone is questioning a post you made yesterday. You may not remember your previous thoughts, or the other person may be long gone by the time you respond. This was the main problem of our forum. The assignment was to participate, so many people commented, replied, and then disappeared into the ether. There was little back-and-forth, as people did not want to wait around for their questions to be answered, or their responses to be replied to. All in all this was a much weaker deliberative experience than our earlier discussions had
Michael Betts
English 138T
3/19/14
been. There was much less actual deliberation done, as the barriers of the internet, which are different from the real-world difficulties we are used to in such discussions, diminished the strength of our deliberations.
