Lauren Freeman

CAS 138T Ben Henderson

Online Deliberation Evaluation

The online deliberation helped me to understand the benefits and drawbacks of
different modes of communication.
Throughout my involvement in the online deliberation, I made a conscious effort
to encourage deliberative discussion rather than a debate. In order to achieve this, I often
would state my claim or initial reaction for each option and then go on to explain why I
felt that way. For example, when commenting on Option 2 I wrote, In my opinion, it is
the parents job to be the foremost educator in their childs development of their morals
and ethics I do not think that a persons morals and ethics are ever really completely
finalized and set in stone. They are constantly changing and molding as each person
experiences new things. I then continued to explain my view by discussing the burden
that this option would place on the University and the problems that would ensue. By
conducting my participation in this manner, I facilitated the deliberation by addressing
my values as well as the drawbacks and benefits for each option.
However, there were some instances in which my language tended to favor more
of a debate, for example when I wrote under Option 1, Students that enter college
knowing that they are not interested in these subjects will not benefit from taking them
and it will only become a burden the only students that will benefit from this situation
are the students that are entering college already interested in the field. Here, I used
absolute statements that limited the opportunity for others to successfully deliberate with
me because I seemingly only left them room to debate these statements and principles
rather than leaving room for others to consider their values against mine. Instead, I could
have used language that enabled the growth of the deliberation and constructed my
sentences in a manner that allowed for this.
Despite this, there were many times that I used language that aided the
continuation of the deliberation. For example, I commented on Option 3 and said; I
think my biggest problem with this option is not necessarily the value behind it (I agree
that we should have equal opportunities), but rather the practicality of its implementation.
I have a hard time seeing how this option would really work in the education system and
how it would be executed and controlled. By understanding others point of view for
this option and seeing it from their perspective, I was able to change my mind about my
initial reaction to the option, and therefore, focus on the options practicality in society.
As mentioned above, I feel that at times, comments led to more of a debate
setting, but there were many comments that helped to facilitate deliberation. For instance,
my initial post for Option 3 was fairly negative, and Joelle Khouri responded by
explaining how she had interpreted the option and its meaning. Joelle wrote, I
interpreted this option in a slightly different manner. An equal opportunity to enter
college is just thatan opportunity, not a guarantee. I dont think this option is saying
everyone should go to college; I think it is saying that everyone should have a chance to
go to college. This gave me the opportunity to reexamine what I had said and rethink the
option in its entirety. I think that this is a large part of a successful deliberation having
people view each option in different ways and coming to understand the benefits and
drawbacks of each interpretation.
Additionally, my comment in Option 2 sparked a response from Brad Morabito
where he challenged my statement by agreeing with the principles of my values but then
asking, would it not then make sense to encourage a positive environment for moral
and ethical development? Again, this furthered the deliberation because it forced me to
see the possibility of my values in this option being implemented in a new way that may
protect or even advance them.
As for the overall productiveness of the online deliberation, I believe that it was
productive in discovering the students stance, values and opinions for all three options.
However, I do not think that the overall goal of the deliberation was reached. Here, I am
defining productivity as the successful completion (or advancement) of the given task,
which in this case was to evaluate and describe ones values and opinions for each option
given and then ultimately deciding which option would be best suited for
implementation.
Consequently, I think that the first part of my definition was reached because the
majority of the comments under all three options consisted of answering this. This can be
seen in Bridgette Boodys comment for Option 1 where she wrote, This option also
neglects the growth in other important areas that higher education serves. Focus on the
sciences and technology neglects critical thinking skills and the creativity that are
necessary in the first place to even dream up new technology and solutions. However,
the online deliberation failed in the selection of a final solution to the problem because
it was conducted through three separate comment chains regarding each option, and it did
not have an overall voting option or comment thread to make a final decision.
Overall, I found that the online deliberation had its benefits as well as its
drawbacks from the in-class deliberation. Firstly, I feel that the lack of a moderator in the
online deliberation hurt its productivity. Without a moderator, there was no influence to
ensure that the comments and conversations were continuing to advance the overall goal
of choosing one of the options. This led to many people commenting back and forth
about what their beliefs were and how they should be valued.
In contrast, the online deliberation provided students with the opportunity to go
into more detail and explain more deeply their beliefs and claims for each option. Also,
having both classes involved in the same forum provided a greater array of opinions,
which helped to advance the deliberation by providing a different viewpoint for each
option. The in-class deliberation was much more limited on time as well as number of
people per group, which hindered the complexity in which the conversations could delve
into.
Consequently, I feel that in the future, the best forum for a deliberation is an in-
person setting because it can be easily moderated, which will provide the best opportunity
for a successful conclusion to the given problem. Also, given enough people and time, it
will prove to be the best option.


Option 1:
1. I absolutely agree with @JoelleKhouri, @LeeBader, @MaggiePurcell,
@CaraCostanzo, @SarahBailin and @bkl5073. I completely understand the importance
of science and mathematics in the technological world of todays society. However, I
think that the people mentioned above bring up a lot of good points that I immediately
thought of as well. In my opinion, people generally have an understanding of what they
do not enjoy doing or are not very good at by the time they enter college. High school has
requirements across the field of education, which provides students with plenty of
background knowledge in subjects to have this type of understanding. Consequently, I
dont think that requiring students to take math and science courses in college is really
beneficial to anyone. Students that enter college knowing that they are not interested in
these subjects will not benefit from taking them and it will only become a burden. I do
not think that taking one or two courses in science or math in college will change the
opinion of a student entering college who is already opposed to a career in that field. As a
result, the only students that will benefit from this situation are the students that are
entering college already interested in the field. This means that the college would not be
producing more science and math majors, but simply causing everyone to take more
classes in these fields and aggravating them in the process. Through all of this, I agree
with @JoelleKhouri that it is the most important to get people more interested in these
subjects at a younger age because that will give them time to really explore their interest.
Personally, I am interested in languages, which would make this requirement very
frustrating for me. I am taking my last math class ever this semester and I couldnt be
more excited about it. But along that matter, this proposal definitely ignores the
importance of other fields as well. At least, I dont think that anytime in the near future
knowing foreign languages is going to become obsolete.

2. As can be seen in my previous comment, I too agree with most of the posts in this
thread. As I read the comments since I last left my own, I realized that this option might
be beneficial on a larger scale if we view it as part of that option 2 incorporation (I think
that is what it was called) from the deliberations that we did in class for GenEds. If we
create classes that incorporate the core parts of the technological, scientific and
mathematical fields into a wide range of GenEds, it may reach a broader audience. This
may pose to be very difficult considering that these three subjects do not fit in very nicely
with all types of GenEds; however, if there is a way in which at least a handful of
GenEds could incorporate the key elements of these subjects, it might be a win-win for
everyone.
I agree with @BridgetteBoody that it is dangerous to ignore the creative sides of the
technological field because without it, we may not produce enough out-of-the-box
thinkers that you need in this field. Therefore, if you pair these fields with more creative
and liberal arts fields, it will give students the ability to broaden their horizons and
explore different subjects while learning them in the light of a field that they may already
be interested. With this method, it is also possible that a student could take the class
without the technological aspect in mind, but by learning it in the context of something
else that they are interested in, they may find that they enjoy that field of learning.

Option 2:
1. In my opinion, it is the parents job to be the foremost educator in their childs
development of their morals and ethics. Obviously, parents cannot and are not the
only contributors to this development because every experience and interaction
with someone else that a person has will ultimately contribute to this finalization
of ones morals and ethics. However, I do not think that a persons morals and
ethics are ever really completely finalized and set in stone. They are constantly
changing and molding as each person experiences new things.
Consequently, I do not think that it should be the main role or purpose of a university to
shape these morals and ethics in its students. This would create many problems for
everyone. Primarily, who decides what specific values are going to be taught and when?
The state? The board of trustees at each university? The individual teachers? This is one
problem that although easily decided can cause many more issues because what happens
if the teacher that is told to teach its students certain values by the university or state does
not necessarily agree with those values?
Finally, I believe that yes, students enter universities with a general understanding of
their personal morals, values and ethics. However, I think that college is the time where
these are all going to be (and are supposed to be) challenged. Having to defend your
beliefs to someone may result in you actually coming to the realization that you dont
really agree with what you previously believed in. I dont think that the university should
really interfere with this personal growth and recognition but rather create a society that
will help to foster it.

Option 3:
1. In my opinion, democracy is inherently unequal and unfair. The point of democracy is
that those that work the hardest will succeed and be rewarded in the free market society
that is America. Obviously, this is not always the case because starting with money can
make life much easier and starting with very little money can limit your opportunities to
further yourself. However, I dont think that it is in the governments best interest to
make sure that everyone gets a 100% equal opportunity to enter college. In my opinion, I
think that the disadvantages of this proposal outweigh the advantages. If I were in high
school and preparing to enter college with this option in place, I would be a lot less
motivated to work as hard as I did because I knew that no matter what, I would have an
equal opportunity to enter college. If this opportunity is equal only in monetary standards,
it still is inherently unequal because people that are wealthier will still be able to afford
better schools (assuming that the government funds a state-school amount) as
@SammyCosta mentioned before. I see how in a utopia or socialist society this would be
beneficial to everyone, but in Americas democratic, free-market economy, I think that
this option will lower academic standards. Although the number of students graduating
college may increase, their academic successes may have been slacking along the way
because they were able to while not wasting money.

2. @JoelleKhouri, I honestly had not even thought of this option in the way that you
described it. I initially read it and understood it as a guarantee, which is what my previous
post focused on. However, if I see it as you mentioned, as an option, then I may really
change my mind on my original stance.
I completely agree with the belief that everyone should have the equal opportunity to
enter college. I also can agree with your point that someone else who works just as hard
as me should have the same opportunity to attend college. I think my biggest problem
with this option is not necessarily the value behind it (I agree that we should have equal
opportunities), but rather the practicality of its implementation. I have a hard time seeing
how this option would really work in the education system and how it would be executed
and controlled.
I think that it is possible that the only real way for this option to work is to change the
culture of the higher education system. The way that it is set up may not support this type
of option, but a different system entirely may support it. For example, in America, it is
highly unlikely for students to take a gap year and travel or gain some real-life
experience. Although many students do take a gap year, the numbers do not necessarily
favor it. However, in Europe this is much more common. Im not saying that one way is
better than the other, but it is clear that the two institutions view taking a gap year
differently. I think that this serves as an example of how maybe a completely different
system of education will be able to foster this option.