The Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of faculty from Davidson College and other higher education institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. These faculty come from a wide array of disciplines and backgrounds to study and discuss deliberative pedagogy methods, share their ideas and questions with one another, and work to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.
By Fangzhi He (2024-25 Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative Faculty Fellow)
Since voice in writing is increasingly diluted by generative AI, identity can be camouflaged by technology, and the self is still under exploration during the first year, it’s not hard to imagine that students enrolled in my Writing 101 course, “Voice, Identity, and Self,” primarily to fulfill a graduation requirement. But I want more for them: I want them to use writing to ask deeper questions, and I aim to engage them in learning that is authentic, courageous, and reflective.
In Spring 2025, I experimented with deliberative pedagogy. In addition to reading and writing on the course theme, I invited students to discuss meaningful ideas, research relevant literature, and listen to diverse perspectives. These deliberative sessions cultivated a richer, more dynamic classroom culture where students didn’t merely state their views but truly engaged with the views of others.
Designing the Space for Dialogue
Our weekly discussions built the foundation. Each week centered on a theme, from voice in academic writing and concepts of self to identity and ableism, even generative. Students came prepared to discuss assigned readings. These smaller discussions were informal and scaffolded by guiding questions. Over time, they became practice grounds for our more structured deliberative dialogues. Students grew their awareness of the norms of deliberation: respectful listening, building on others’ ideas, supporting ideas with evidence, and thinking before speaking.
We held three major deliberation sessions, after soliciting students’ ideas and interests. Each one required students to draw upon the course materials, their personal experiences, and their rhetorical skills:
- Does writing empower or limit identity formation?
- Should diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in educational institutions be restricted under federal civil rights law?
- How can generative AI impact learning in higher education?
Each deliberation was framed differently. The first one was like a debate, where one group of students who shared the same argued against an opposing group. The second one was run in the form of a town hall, where students were assigned different roles to defend their position, such as parents, first-generation students, university or Corporate Diversity Officers, and government officials. The third one was organized like a seminar, where students take turns answering the questions in the deliberation guide. The goal was not to win an argument but to explore the tensions, assumptions, and values behind differing perspectives. Before each session, students worked in small groups, searching for relevant sources and drafting their arguments. After each session, they wrote an essay to write just what they heard, but how their own thinking shifted, citing scholarly sources and connecting the course readings.
What Worked Well
The most rewarding part of this pedagogy was watching students realize that learning happens not just in solitary study, but in community. Many commented that they had never had the chance to engage with peers in such depth about real-world issues. They valued hearing opinions that differed from their own, especially when grounded in lived experience.
In one session, a student noted, “To begin with, I only knew writing to be an emancipating way of letting oneself be found. I now understand how institutional conventions work as a gatekeeping function, limiting whose voices get to be heard and valued.” In another session, a student who initially viewed DEI initiatives as “creating reverse discrimination and undermining the spirit of civil rights” reconsidered after hearing a peer describe how such programs created a sense of belonging on campus. Another student, skeptical of generative AI in education, became more open after a classmate shared how ChatGPT helped him as a multilingual writer to find proper expression and reduce his anxiety over writing in English. These statements evidenced thoughtful expansions of perspective.
The structure also encouraged more reserved students to participate. In the deliberative format, everyone had a role, and the focus shifted from answering correctly to contributing meaningfully. Some of the quiet students became insightful contributors when freed from the pressure of formulating a polished argument on the spot.
Where We Stumbled
Deliberation takes time. Sometimes, we had to rush over the topic within the assigned time. Occasionally, students tended to arrive at a consensus, avoiding deeper conflict or disagreement. I also noticed that students sometimes struggled to use scholarly evidence, solely relying on personal experiences. More scaffolding might improve this, such as pre-deliberation writing prompts.
In topics like DEI, students felt it hard to defend their position enthusiastically, either because of the assigned role or the emotional intensity. I realized the need for explicit guidance on difficult conversations, including how to disagree constructively and how to recognize privilege or positionality in conversation.
What We Gained
Through deliberative pedagogy, students practiced respectful listening, logical reasoning, critical reflection, and rhetorical agency. They discovered that voice in writing is not just individual expression; rather, it is shaped in dialogue with others. Many students described moments of feeling “seen” or “heard” in ways they hadn’t expected. They also noted that the deliberation sessions helped them know better other students as individuals, especially when they used their personal experiences to support their arguments.
The deliberations also helped break down binaries between empowerment and constraint, pro- and anti-AI stances, and support and critique of DEI. Students realized that real thinking happens in moments of disagreement and that writing can be a way of navigating complexity.
Looking Ahead
I plan to incorporate deliberation into my future courses since students shared that they greatly enjoyed it. I’m thinking about building more intentional bridges between deliberations topics, the course themes, and written assignments. I’m also considering assigning more roles like “devil’s advocate” or “evidence checker” to deepen the quality of engagement.
Deliberative pedagogy reminds me that education isn’t just about transmitting knowledge; it’s about fostering democratic habits of mind. It’s about creating space for disagreement, uncertainty, and dialogue. In the increasingly polarized world, the classroom can be a valuable space for nuanced conversation. I’m grateful to my students for showing me just how much they are committed to learning and are ready for any challenge.
