Faculty Posts

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:

1. Does writing empower or limit identity formation?
2. Should diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in educational institutions be restricted under federal civil rights law?
3. 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.

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 Kate LeCroy (2024-25 Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative Faculty Fellow)

This spring, I re-designed my Conservation Biology course at Rhodes College with the hope of improving students’ engagement with each other about big, current problems in conservation biology. Over the course of the semester, students became not just consumers of information, but active contributors to our shared process of inquiry. We did this by embedding structured deliberations into our weekly rhythm, and we transformed Wednesday classes into deliberations where students navigated environmental “wicked problems” together.

The Topics

We explored five main topics this way: the re-introduction of wolves in Colorado, the consequences of honey bee conservation in North Amerca, philosophical and practical questions surrounding zoos, management of invasive species, and trophy hunting. Each of these issues carried ethical tension, tradeoffs, and a diversity of stakeholder perspectives. Students examined scientific literature alongside economic reports, Indigenous perspectives, and public policy analyses. In doing so, they developed both ecological literacy and gained fluency in collective reasoning.

The Structure

Deliberation, as we practiced it, went beyond discussion. It was a structured, collaborative inquiry into disagreement. It required that students engage with uncertainty, interrogate assumptions, and stretch their thinking by listening carefully to others. Each deliberation spanned two weeks. On the first Wednesday, we focused on mapping out the dimensions of a given issue and identifying a range of positions. Students prepared by reading three assigned articles, conducting their own “ground research,” and submitting their interpretations through an issue survey to capture their initial thinking. In class, three student presenters introduced the week’s topic and synthesized what they had learned from a given assigned reading. Student moderators then guided the class through a group activity that involved collaboratively identifying causes, consequences, stakeholders, and tradeoffs of the issue, and ultimately mapping three or more distinct positions that a person could take.

On the second Wednesday of a deliberation sequence, the focus shifted from mapping to actively deliberating. Students signed up to for leadership roles in these second Wednesdays, and each of the 16 students tried at least one of the roles: one student acted as the Opener, summarizing the positions mapped the week before in a graphical handout they designed (example below) along with a brief introduction. Two Deliberation Facilitators then posed questions to the rest of the class, guiding the deliberation process, and a Scribe took notes and captured the conversation in detail, using attribution to help document the deliberation. In the final portion of class, students reflected on how the deliberation impacted their overall takeaway about the issue and broader conservation biology contexts.

Outcomes & Feedback

Student evaluations of their experience confirmed that the deliberative approach deepened their engagement with the material. Many cited the structure, especially the issue forms and leadership roles, as key to their preparation and confidence. They reported that the most engaging topics were those with no easy answers. Trophy hunting, for example, was one of the most popular because it forced students to grapple with competing conservation strategies, moral philosophies, and economic realities. The topic of honey bee conservation surprised many students by upending the assumption that saving honey bees in North America is always a good thing, leading to nuanced discussions about native species and ecological balance.

Several students noted that acting as facilitators, openers, or scribes helped them develop leadership skills and a better grasp of classroom dynamics. They reported growing more comfortable with ambiguity, and as facilitators, they became more confident in drawing quieter voices into the conversation. Disagreement, when it occurred, was overwhelmingly described as respectful and generative. Students recognized that it was not only acceptable, but necessary, to encounter views that differed from their own.

By the end of the semester, students had not only built a strong foundation in conservation biology but had also experienced the kind of civic learning in an upper-level biology course necessary for preparing early-career professionals for a society where misinformation and eroding trust of scientific information is all too common [1]. They learned to navigate complex issues collaboratively, communicate across difference, and listen with the intent to understand. The deliberation format gave them practice in collective reasoning, and the role structure ensured accountability and inclusion.

If the goal of teaching is to help students become more thoughtful, informed, and responsible stewards of the world, then I feel deliberative pedagogy proved itself a worthy foundation. This is a model I plan to keep refining and one I believe could enrich classrooms far beyond mine.

Acknowledgements and References: I would like to thank my first students in the Spring 2024 conservation biology course for inspiring me to learn more about boosting student interactions in class, and I thank the sixteen students enrolled in conservation biology for Spring 2025 for being willing to experiment and try out deliberations. Without their curiosity and willingness to try something new, we wouldn’t have accomplished this work. Lastly, I am deeply grateful to Graham Bullock and the Davidson College Deliberative Citizenship Initiative for their generosity of time, training program resources, and funding. Reference: [1] Osborne, J., & Pimentel, D. (2023). Science education in an age of misinformation. Science Education, 107(3), 553–571. PDF link

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 Ja’Nya Jenoch (2024-25 Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative Faculty Fellow)

The Process

When I first saw the email about applying for a Deliberative Collaborative Initiative (DCI) fellowship, I was intrigued and excited. As an early scholar, I enjoyed another teaching and learning fellowship two summers ago and it helped me to develop my teaching skills and increase confidence. So, I was curious to see what this DCI fellowship could bring.

The goal of the fellowship is for professors to develop and implement a deliberation-based syllabus in one course. I did not even know that deliberative pedagogy was a thing before reading that email; however, during our summer 2024 orientation my cohort and I were immersed in this innovative pedagogy for advancing civil conversations in the classroom. We not only learned what deliberative pedagogy was, we were supplied with ample tools and resources and sent back to our home colleges and universities with a 9-month plan for creating classes where students will be engaged in meaningful dialogue about our nation’s most pressing issues.

The Design

My pilot course for teaching deliberative pedagogy was a course about Black Americans—a topic that had been given a swift controversial/banned label after January 2025 by national leaders. It was being taught to upper-level sociology students at a private liberal arts college with full administrative support. My approach to the course was multi-fold and had the following goals:

1. Provide a course that surveyed the topic using an historical lens.
2. Introduce students to deliberative pedagogy through readings, observations, and practice.
3. Have students present live class deliberations for their final course project.
4. Maintain awareness of the impact of the political climate on course topics.

To give students the historical lens that I wanted them to include in their deliberations, we visited the college’s archives for a curated tour. The librarian shared with the students an

actual indenture document and they learned about the challenges with reading and interpreting writing from that time. They also left with lots of resources and instructions on how to find archival data.

Next students read some of the more popular literature on deliberative pedagogy such as chapters from the book, Why We Argue. Afterwards we discussed the readings and identified key elements of deliberative pedagogy. I also introduced students to other practices that are in the civil discourse arena. These included a Living Room Conversation about the course topic and a Civil Dialogue on the benefits and disadvantages of the Civil Rights Act. According to the hierarchy of types of discourses, I viewed each of these early activities as practice and preparation for deliberation.

Once students were immersed and more knowledgeable about civil discourse in general, in week five of the course they were required to attend one of the DCI online forums. They attended the forum on religion and enjoyed it tremendously. Students were asked to write a reflection about the forum in response to these four questions:

1. Describe the facilitation styles that you observed and will plan to practice during your deliberation.
2. Were there parts of the deliberation that were more helpful than the others (e.g., panel, deliberation, guide, etc.)? Explain why they were more helpful to you.
3. What parts of the deliberation guide were most helpful in preparing you for the deliberation?
4. What three things will you take away from the forum to create your own deliberation?

After the forum I led the class through an in-class deliberation. The topic was integration in Boston Public Schools in 1965, and we used a deliberation guide from the National Issues Forum website. The purpose of this deliberation was to provide a second model of a live deliberation. Students were tasked with identifying facilitator roles such as refereeing and weaving during this class deliberation. The deliberation guide also served as another example of what a guide should look like. The one that we used did an excellent job of outlining the three options for the topic.

The course ended with pairs of students leading the class in deliberations on topics of their choosing. In pairs they wrote deliberation guides that included archival data, standard deliberation guide requirements, and two to three options for their topic. During the deliberation class each partner in the pair led a small group of five students through an identical deliberation. Students were assessed jointly on their deliberation guide and separately on their deliberation practice as a facilitator. Their final assignment for the deliberation project was to write a brief reflection in response to two out of eight questions/prompts.

Results: Improved Engagement

After a year of learning about and implementing deliberative pedagogy, I would say that this is a teaching tool that I definitely plan to use many times in the future. I found that when students were informed about how we were going to engage in the classroom, when they were given a set of guidelines, when they were allowed to observe & experience what they’re being asked to do, they felt more confident engaging in the classroom and exploring new topics in unique ways. Remember that this was a class where almost half of the students were seniors. It was smaller than average and most of the students knew each other personally or from prior courses. I thought this helped the deliberation process to unfold with deeper connection to the material. However, I conducted a mini deliberation in an intro sociology course and the students were as engaged as the upper-level students.

Deliberation enabled quiet students to participate meaningfully and take on leadership roles.

Results: The Importance of Structure & Observation

Given that this was the first deliberation-focused class that I have ever taught, I was curious to see what fostered engagement in both upper and lower-level classes. What I noticed was that students connected well with the structure of deliberation. They liked reading conversation agreements and deliberative dispositions. I placed slides with these structured aspects of the deliberation on the screen and asked for students to volunteer reading a few statements out loud. The deliberation practice of outlining what was going to take place and for how long also helped students to feel anchored in this practice. When students knew what to expect, they were quick to align with the goals of deliberation.

In my upper-level course, I feel that having students attend the DCI’s online forum was a game changer. After attending the forum, students returned to class knowing exactly what deliberation looked and felt like. One student was excited that he got to be in a breakout room with real practitioners and was able to engage in conversation with them. I found the live forum attendance to be greatly beneficial to student learning. Another adaptation that made deliberation work well in this course was pairing students to complete the guide and then have them practice facilitation individually during class. I would use this format again

since during the guide preparation students can work together, bounce ideas of each other, and create a more comprehensive guide. During the class deliberation I could assess each person’s level of participation in creating the guide.

Results: Students’ Response

The responses from students were positive. They enjoyed delving into topics in a meaningful way. They liked the deliberations and reported that the class should be mandatory for all students due to how much they learned and the way that they learned. They also enjoyed choosing topics for their personal deliberations. Having a deliberation- style class also allowed us to include current topics related to our course in a seamless way. We were able to include current topics like the 2025 Superbowl halftime show, the impacts of hot-of-the-press executive orders, and other topics that were not on the syllabus, and still feel like we were on track with the course outline.

I was nervous at the start of the semester. This was because I did not know how comfortable students would feel discussing topics that were banned nationwide in many classrooms. Initially I noticed some hesitation to voice thoughts about topics relevant to Black America, however as the semester progressed students became more comfortable expressing their thoughts, feelings, and concerns about the course topic. We had some animated discussions and some where students stayed 10 to 15 minutes after class to continue discussions. By the time that students had to lead their own deliberations I was happy to observe a classroom of students who were fully in charge of their learning and engagement. That was a beautiful sight to see each time. Deliberation allowed students to focus on the art of engaging in civil interactions about difficult topics even in the middle of controversy.

Conclusion & Next Steps

Overall, the DCI experience was a positive one. I have learned a pedagogy that enlivened my classes and helped students form deeper connections with each other and with the course material. Some things I would change are that I would assign one key reading at the beginning instead of several chapters at once. This would give students an introduction and they could learn more through class discussion and lectures on deliberative pedagogy. I would also have them watch a deliberation from the DCI video archives before attending a live deliberation.

The ability to ask questions is a cornerstone of sociological inquiry. This was also true of deliberative pedagogy. When I was preparing mini-deliberations and giving students feedback on their deliberation guides, I found that asking key questions can make a deliberation spark active discussion or have it fall flat. Next time I will focus more time learning the art of asking questions to foster even better deliberations.

I plan to implement deliberation in a similar way into other upper-level classes. In the semester that I piloted deliberation in the one class, I ended up including mini deliberations in other classes and students mentioned in their course evaluations that they liked these activities and the class discussions that emerged. Deliberative pedagogy is an effective pedagogical practice. If the structure, questions, and setting are right, it can bring classroom discussions to life and make them full of meaning and candor.

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 Vincent Russell (2024-25 Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative Faculty Fellow)

I have been involved in the public deliberation field for more than a decade, but prior to this DeeP Fellowship, I had never robustly incorporated public deliberation into my pedagogy. In the past, I did what I could to make my courses experiential and discussion-focused, and I often incorporate service-learning. I regularly include current events and controversial topics into my course material to encourage students to apply course content. After all, as a Communication scholar, I am interested in helping my students learn how to better talk to one another, and I believe that preparing students to be participatory and justice-oriented citizens is the fundamental purpose of postsecondary education.

When I told a colleague I had received this fellowship, she congratulated me and said it sounded like it would be a perfect fit for my Intercultural Communication course—an upper-level course I teach every year that focuses on communicating across difference, globalization, and social justice. I surprised my colleague by telling her yes, incorporating deliberation into that course would be a logical fit, but instead I had chosen to incorporate public deliberation into the introductory communication course I teach called Foundations of Communication. Allow me to explain why.

The Challenges of the Basic Course

At WCU, Foundations of Communication (what our discipline refers to as “the basic course”) is required for all students to satisfy the “oral communication” requirement of our general education curriculum. No other WCU courses satisfy the oral communication requirement, so nearly every undergraduate student at WCU must take the course to matriculate. Approximately 2,000 students take Foundations of Communication every year.

Teaching this course presents several challenges. First, students, most often, are not willing participants. They are in class because they must be, not because they chose to be there. Additionally, the students come from a range of majors (including undeclared majors), so their base knowledge of Communication varies widely. Third, despite the course being an introductory-level class intended for first- or second-year students, a significant number of juniors and seniors enroll.

This is partly due to our basic course program being underfunded (we don’t have enough instructors to meet demand, so there is a backlog of students needing to take the course to graduate) but also because of the content of the course. Students with high communication apprehension (colloquially known as “public speaking anxiety”) often delay taking the course until necessary. Thus, in any given section of our basic course, an instructor may have students across a range of ages and school experiences, and most of them did not elect to take the course but are simply there to fulfill a requirement.

Beyond adapting instruction to students’ needs, another challenge of the course is the content itself. The basic course tends to be known as “the public speaking class,” and many people are terrified of public speaking. So not only are students only in class because they must be, the general content we cover is usually unpleasant—if not downright panic-inducing—for the students.

However, our course is not just about public speaking. We also cover interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, small group communication, and mediated communication. It is a lot of material to cover in a single semester, and then you must factor in the days dedicated just to having students deliver presentations in class (and I usually require three presentations each semester). Dedicating class time to presentations reduces the number of days that one can cover and practice content.

As a final note about the challenges of the basic course, our instructor team has noticed since the COVID-19 pandemic that students increasingly struggle with the interpersonal communication aspects of the course. Sure, they still struggle with giving a presentation, too, but what has been new since 2020 is that students appear less confident in their abilities to have casual conversations with classmates, make friends, participate in group work, contribute to class discussions, and perform the other quotidian tasks of face-to-face communication. In other words, our students’ communication apprehension used to be, primarily, about public speaking. Since 2020, we’re finding that their communication apprehension has extended to interpersonal contexts, too. Many of our students appear anxious about simply talking to their classmates. National trends appear to corroborate our experiences, as college students are increasingly anxious and lonely.

The Opportunities of the Basic Course

These challenges of Foundations of Communication also make it ripe for the benefits of public deliberation. First, the class includes diverse students from varying backgrounds, which means they are more likely to have varying viewpoints on public issues than students who self-selected to enroll in an elective course. Second, the plurality of students in the basic course usually are first- and second-year students, so I was hopeful that their opinions on public issues were still malleable and that deliberating about these issues could help students better refine their stances. Third, I believe it’s important to expose students early to the skills of deliberation so that they can reap those benefits in later courses. If they learn the basics of reason-giving, source credibility, and how to disagree with classmates in my basic Communication course, then those skills will serve them will in their future coursework, whatever it may be.

Most importantly, though, I saw deliberative pedagogy as a way to help students reduce their interpersonal communication apprehension. I provided explicit instruction about the communicative orientations and skills necessary to perform deliberation well, along with structured opportunities to participate in (and facilitate) deliberation with classmates. In doing so, I intended to provide opportunities to practice the communication skills of questioning, reason-giving, empathy, managing conflict, problem-solving, and decision-making. This, in turn, would help them feel more comfortable relating to their classmates.

Incorporating Deliberation into the Basic Course

To incorporate deliberative pedagogy into my Foundations of Communication course, I revamped the assigned readings to include several pieces of scholarship about deliberative pedagogy and public deliberation, the facilitator’s guide from the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, and several chapters out of Lara Schwartz’s Try to Love the Questions. Schwartz’s book was recommended to me by another DeeP faculty fellow, and it does a good job preparing students for the deliberative dispositions I wanted them to practice.

I scaffolded the course so that students were introduced to deliberative pedagogy and its basic concepts at the beginning of the semester. Later, as the semester progressed, they read about specific deliberation skills, such as listening, questioning, and facilitating. I dedicated class time to several “practice deliberations,” where I facilitated 30-minute conversations with the class about social issues. I also used activities from the Constructive Dialogue Institute and the Collaborative Discussion Project to give students chances to practice specific deliberation skills. For instance, on the day we practiced listening, I used the “Listening to Understand” activity from the Collaborative Discussion Project to give students a chance to practice listening skills they read about prior to class that day. All of these examples were ungraded opportunities to practice deliberation skills.

I also had various graded components to promote deliberative learning. Most significantly, students were put into groups and assigned to facilitate a deliberation about a topic I had chosen. I created four groups with six students in each group. On their assigned deliberation day, the entire class was assigned to read a deliberation guide (from DCI and/or) about the topic for that day. I chose issue guides from DCI and the National Issues Forum Institute about social media regulation, economic mobility, immigration, and police reform. On deliberation day, the facilitators were expected to deliver an 8–10-minute informative presentation summarizing the deliberation guide and the perspectives it offered, explaining how the deliberation time would be structured, and offering a conversation agreement.

Following the presentation, the facilitators had 60 minutes to facilitate deliberation about the topic. The class broke into six small groups, with one facilitator in each group, and the facilitators guided the students through the questions in the deliberation guide. I then floated around the groups grading the facilitators on their facilitation skills. After each deliberation day, every student had to complete a reflection essay identifying what they thought they did well, what they want to improve for the next deliberation, and how course concepts manifested during their conversations. Facilitators had a specific set of questions to answer in those essays, while deliberators had a different set of questions.

These graded deliberation days occurred about halfway through the semester. I structured the course in this way so that students already would have had several weeks to build rapport with one another, develop a baseline understanding of public deliberation, and practice their deliberation skills in class before being graded on a student-led deliberation.

This assignment structure accomplished several goals. First, it was efficient. I typically require an informative speech in the class around the middle of the semester, and this deliberation assignment was a way to merge informative speaking with deliberation, thereby combining two assignments into one. Second, every student facilitated one deliberation and participated in three deliberations as a deliberator, so they gained exposure to both roles and had multiple opportunities to practice deliberation skills. Because students were assigned pre-existing deliberation guides (rather than researching and writing their own), the students could focus more on applying the communication skills of deliberation, which was my goal for this introductory course.

In summary, students had three graded assignments related to deliberation. Each group received a group grade for their informative presentation—after all, this course does have a public speaking component. Each student received an individual grade and feedback about their performance as a facilitator, and then every student received grades for their reflection essays (four total).

Outcomes and Next Steps

Overall, my first foray into robust deliberative pedagogy went well, but there are some things I want to change. In the future, I need to make the facilitator groups smaller. I had 24 students in class this semester, so when they would break into six small groups to deliberate, each group had four students in it (one facilitator and three deliberators). Because students sometimes were absent, some facilitators had a group with only two deliberators in it, which isn’t sufficient for robust deliberation. However, creating more facilitator groups means finding additional days in my already jam-packed course schedule to hold graded deliberations. Another improvement I would like to make is to find a way to give students feedback on their deliberation skills. This semester, I only graded each student’s facilitation skills. I had developed a rubric for the deliberators and had the idea of having students fill them out for their peers (so students were giving each other feedback on their deliberation rather than me), but I scrapped the idea because the logistics were too complicated for my first time incorporating these deliberation assignments.

As for outcomes, I believe students appreciated the opportunity to learn about pressing social issues and talk with one another. In their reflection papers, many students remarked upon their anxiety related to discussing “political” issues. Having grown up on social media, they feared that social media dynamics about politics would play out in the classroom (e.g., being “canceled,” people making fun of them, appearing ignorant, etc.). Students tended to appreciate that the deliberation assignment provided a structured way to discuss wicked problems, helping them develop their opinions on these topics; learn that “political” discussion does not have to be tense, hostile, or frightening; and develop interpersonal connections with their classmates.

Another outcome from my perspective as a professor was that by having students deliberate about controversial issues with one another, it took pressure off me to help students navigate those murky waters. In the past, when I’ve had class discussions about controversial issues, I still served as the focal point and leader of discussion, and so students would sometimes form perceptions about my “biases.” The deliberation assignment removed my “bias” from the equation, enabling students to talk with one another without fear of reprisal from the professor. My rubrics also were content neutral, so students knew they were graded on their facilitation skills instead of the stance they took on the topic.

Lastly, an unexpected outcome from this experiment was that students’ presentations were better than they had been in the past. As I mentioned before, the deliberation assignments occurred about halfway through the semester; it was the second of three units in the course. The final unit is about persuasive speaking, and students must deliver an advocacy speech about a social issue. It’s an individual assignment (instead of a group assignment), and they must take a stance on a topic and present a well-researched argument supporting their stance. The students’ advocacy speeches this semester were better than past semesters. I believe the opportunity to discuss controversial issues with their classmates during the deliberation unit helped reduce their anxiety about taking a public stance on a controversial topic. They also already had a chance to practice a “leadership” role by serving as a facilitator, which potentially increased their confidence when standing in front of class to deliver their presentation as an “authority” on their chosen subject. Finally, the deliberation guides provided examples of well-researched arguments about wicked problems, and some students used those guides as starting points to develop their advocacy speeches. Doing so enabled them to craft higher quality, more nuanced, and better sourced presentations than I had seen in previous semesters.

In conclusion, I believe my attempt to incorporate deliberative pedagogy into a foundational course that’s required for all students at WCU was successful. I plan to share my insights with my fellow instructors, and I’m hopeful that we can infuse deliberative pedagogy into more sections of the Foundations of Communication course. Doing so holds the potential of introducing students early in their academic careers to foundational skills necessary for participatory citizenship, which students can then leverage in their future coursework, careers, and communities.

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 May Mei (2024-25 Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative Faculty Fellow)

I think every mathematician cringes when approached with the sentiment that “Math is great because there’s one correct answer so you’ll know when you get there and you’re either right or you’re wrong.” Nothing could be further from the truth! Some processes might be imitable, but mathematics is about truth and beauty, creativity and rigor. Especially in the age of generative AI, I wanted to tell students: You have more answers than you know what to do with. This class isn’t about finding answers, it’s about deciding which of the many answers in front of you is better.

My multivariable calculus class met an hour/day for four days/week. Every Monday was dedicated to deliberation. In the first half of class, students started with a quiz. This consisted of two standard questions in multivariable calculus with solutions (either former student solutions or answers from ChatGPT). The prompt was “You have received two problems with solutions. They might be completely accurate or wildly false. Your task is to evaluate these solutions. Are they mathematically correct? Are claims supported by evidence? Is the writing cogent and persuasive? Is notation used appropriately?” Students submitted a written assessment about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the two solutions. In the second half of class, there was a deliberation on their proposed responses.

I will confess, the students had a hard time deliberating. Because the solutions they were engaging with weren’t embodied by someone in the class, it was hard to get them to feel like they were in dialogue with an answer. After trying out a few different models in the first few weeks of class, we settled on a popcorn reading of the solution with each student responding to that part in particular. This is perhaps closer to a discussion than a deliberation, but it is where the class settled.

A learning outcome of the course was to “Engage students in the act of discernment: Deciding which of many answers in front of you is better and mounting a convincing argument as to why that is the case.” I started the class off with the first chapter of Why We Argue (And How We Should). There, the standard philosophical definition of knowledge as a justified, true belief was presented. Students weren’t confused about what it meant to believe something. And when they were asked for justifications, they said things like “it’s in the book” or “you said it.” But when it came to what it meant for something to be true, they once again said “it’s in the book” or “you said it.” They had a hard time with the notion that I, their professor, or even the entire community of mathematicians could be wrong.

Over the course of the semester, I saw my students engage deeply with their relationship with authority and to develop their own voice and confidence in their assessment. Here are two sample student responses on a reflection that asked for self-assessment of progress towards the learning outcome of discernment:

Student 1: “I definitely improved on this aspect. When I first took my first quiz, I never said anything was wrong because I wanted to believe it was right because it was put in front of me. But I have definitely gotten better at understanding why there is a correct answer and not believing everything in front of me.”

Student 2: “This is difficult for me because there are many ways to work through problems so it’s hard not to believe someone else’s work/explanation even if it’s done in a different way than I would do it. I did get better at this and learned how to back up my argument.”