Faculty Posts

When I first saw the flyer about Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I immediately knew that it was something I wanted to learn more about and get involved with. At that time, the college I was working for had just gotten out of the ICU: it had successfully secured funding from the state to keep its doors open, after years of financial distress. As a sociologist with a law background, I am dedicated to teaching and learning how to “productively engage with one another on difficult and contentious issues facing our community and society” (DCI website).

Every semester, I teach an introductory level course in sociology – Sociology 101. This is a required course for all sociology major students and a popular class in the core curriculum. Even with a short amount of time into my career as a professor (about 3 years now), I have found that the SO101 class is the hardest course to teach. One of the reasons is that the difference in background and life experience of individuals can have so much impact on their perspectives and opinions that students and educators have difficulty engaging in meaningful and productive conversations on almost any given topic. Especially as an international scholar, a woman, and a racial minority at a small liberal arts institution, I often felt pushback in the classroom: “… a Chinese is teaching Marx…”; “… she cannot get over her personal experiences…”; “a woman is teaching Feminist theory”; “too liberal…”; “a brainwashing class” (these are selected quotes from course evaluations).

Although I can’t completely change how students view me, I know there is room for me to be a better professor who can teach those controversial topics in a more productive fashion. Thus, I joined the DCI’s 2023-2024 faculty fellows program — the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative — and decided to construct the SO101 course in spring 2024 as a deliberative course.

Based on the original framework of this course, I modified and added three components: 1) I revised the grading rubric of the Interview Project and put more emphasis on the deliberation section in the final paper; 2) I added a Townhall Meeting Activity with a full deliberation session in class; and 3) I took advantage of having a TA in the classroom to provide additional feedback to students’ deliberation performance, such as in-class discussions.

What wasn’t in my plan was that in March 2024, during spring break, my college announced that it will close its doors permanently at the end of the spring term because it failed to get the money from the state (yes, it was a chaotic story of how we should have gotten the money but eventually didn’t). The college has been suffering from financial instability for over a decade. Still, this abrupt news over spring break hurt the morale on the entire campus, and it forced many faculty members, including me, to adjust our lesson plans to accommodate everyone’s needs.

I wanted to make sure that the course represented a feasible time demand for the students (given the fact that they have to deal with transferring, campus visits, decision making, and the stress associated with this news) while still ensuring the class would provide a meaningful learning experience for everyone. I therefore reduced the workload by requiring students to finish one of the two big remaining assignments (not closely related to deliberation) instead of doing both. And I had to be flexible with the attendance policy as many students had to miss class to do campus visits or taking mental breaks. Because of that, I decided to not do The Circle activity, which had been scheduled on the week after spring break.

I also extended the deadline of the final paper of the Interview Project (which was due the week after spring break). For the Interview Project, each student was required to pick a topic and interview someone who disagrees with them on this topic. This project was scheduled over five weeks, starting with dedicated class time on the rubric and brainstorming, followed by a literature review assignment, interview guide assignment, the actual interview (over spring break), and the final deliberation paper.

To my surprise, given everything else going on, students did well on their deliberation papers (they submitted it two weeks after the closure announcement). They were able to compare different perspectives on the controversial topic, synthesize the relationship between different ideas, investigate how people’s personal experiences shape their opinions, and find the common ground between them. Students especially emphasized the value of listening to one another’s story, and how that experience helped them develop empathy and compassion. From their reflections, students overall enjoyed the experience of the project, even while at the beginning some found it uncomfortable to discuss controversial topics with someone who disagrees with them.

The Townhall Meeting activity took place two weeks before the last day of class. I was so concerned about students’ participation that I decided to use a class period (a week before the activity) to prepare for this activity. My TA and I compiled a reading list, including the history of affirmative action and opinions from multiple perspectives. We created roles that would participate in this meeting: university admission staff, high school senior students, parents, residents in the community, college students, college professors, news reporter, and state legislators.

In the prep class, each student drew a role, independently developed the characteristics of the role, then prepared for making their statement based on the role. Students were given information about the procedure of the Townhall Meeting at the prep class as well. By the time we hosted the Townhall, students have already spent the entire class period (80 minutes) and an entire week preparing for their opening statement and questions.

On the day of activity, we set-up the classroom tables in a circle, which emphasized that everyone had an equal right to have their voices heard. My TA served as the moderator while I was taking notes and grading students on their 1) knowledge of the topic; 2) portrayal of their role; and 3) participation in the deliberation. A quarter of the class were absent, yet they prerecorded their statements to be played at the Townhall. My TA started the activity with some brief opening remarks, then played all the videos and let everyone in class give their opening statement. Then, the activity went into the cross-examination phase.

I was concerned that there would be dead silence because nobody was motivated to debate, with everything else going on. Again, to my surprise, students were eager to talk, express their opinions, and “play” their roles. My TA was busy pointing to people to speak as there were lots of hands raised. At the end, I found out that almost half of the students drew a role that they disagree with. They said that was an interesting yet rewarding experience to speak from the opposite side.

Overall, I think my deliberation course went well; or more precisely, better than I expected. If I were to do it again, I would spend a bit more time talking about deliberation pedagogy with my students, discuss more readings about deliberation, and watch a few videos of deliberation. I recognize that in most cases I won’t be able to have a TA in class, which will demand more time from me to prepare for the class activities and grade the low stake deliberatve discussions in class.

As I am concluding my deliberation course, my college – a small liberal art institution in the deep south of the United States – is winding down after 168 years of operation. Yet the debate and politics about liberal art education, private institutions and public funding will not end. With a bitter feeling and watery eyes, I must move forward.

Yingling Liu submitted this blog post at the end of the Spring 2024 semester while she was still at Birmingham-Southern College. She started an Assistant Professor of Sociology position at North Central College in the fall of 2024.

It’s the day before classes start and I am feeling some odd combination of prepared and nervous. I feel as though I had excellent training for what I am proposing to do and yet I am also worried that it’s not going to work out. A lot of planning went into the course but I also allowed for some flexibility. So I am curious to see how this works out. I wanted this blog to be a kind of journal of my experience so will check back in at different points in the semester.

Week 1 into Week 2: I am working on getting members of the class to talk with me and each other. Not surprisingly there are a fair number of students reluctant to speak. I have been tossing out lots of subjects while covering the chapters of the course text assigned and it seems to be giving the students more confidence and a feel for each other.

Midterm: The class has loosened up quite a bit. I accomplished this by scatter-shot discussions during class of the different course topics, which is easy with behavioral economics. The first full-class deliberation went really well. 

Due to the size of the class I divided it into two groups and the first group was scheduled to present and everyone had a written assignment deliverable designed to provide background. The speakers did a good job and there was great interaction both among those speaking and the other students not scheduled to speak. The second group will do their session toward the end of March.

I think it was a good idea to divide the group (15 students each in 50-minute sessions) and one other strategy that I thought was effective was to ask each speaker to state their first name at the start of the presentation. That way students could address each other by name. It also contributed to the listening part of the deliberation assessment. Students could make notes of points raised and refer to them with the speaker’s name. 

The same type of exercise was repeated about 2/3 through the semester and even the reluctant students were engaged and participating. Some of that was the choice of topic; it was something that everyone could find information on and have an opinion about.

The final session of the course will be the extended time period allotted for final exams and everyone is expected to share the research they did for the final paper of the course. I am optimistic that it will be a good session, but that will be my next check-in.

Week before the Final: It’s the week before the final and I am working on preparing students for the final deliberation. I have shown a video so they can see what it should look like and am going through the steps of preparation for the next few classes that we have left. I decided to check in before the final because I am feeling more optimistic about the energy around this in the class. Students seem more engaged and interested in having the conversation. What I can say at this point is that the journey has been up and down and I am interested in seeing how it ends. More later.

The Final: The final exam session was allocated to the final deliberation to allow ample time for everyone in this relatively large class to participate. Students had prepared for this by researching an area related to the overall topic, which I hope will result in good information on a number of aspects of the topic to be included in the group work.

The final session turned out to be successful. The participation was broad-based, and students engaged with each other. The group arrived at a consensus and my overall feeling was that students felt heard and felt that they had learned from each other. This was evidenced in the reflections students turned in at the end of the session.

So how to summarize? This has been a journey with its ups and downs and those were mostly my lack of confidence in the process and practice. As I grew more familiar with facilitating a deliberation the more the students responded and it become self-reinforcing. For anyone reading this I would say keep moving through the steps and learn along the way. I don’t feel as though this is an end but rather a beginning and I move forward to continue to foster deliberation in my classes with more assurance.

This past spring I taught a writing course focused on filmic depictions of race, which incorporated four deliberative sessions on related topics of debate. Every other week on Fridays we addressed the following issues: 1) Critical Race Theory: Should States Restrict Discussion of Race in the Classroom 2) Race and Ethnicity in Entertainment. Does the Entertainment Industry Positively and Fairly Portray Minorities? 3) Slavery Reparations: Should the Government Provide Reparations to the Descendants of Slaves? 

For each one, students prepared readings representing both sides as mapped out on the “Engage with Opposing Viewpoints” website. In addition, students on each side were obliged to find additional readings to support their point of view. For the fourth deliberation, students picked the topic, which ended up being an essay on Black actors in fantasy films whose faces were far more often altered by CGI technology than white actors.

Students were divided up into two teams, and over the course of the first three deliberations, each took up one of the following roles: a 2 – 3 minute introduction of the groups’ position; engaging with one member of the other team in a back and forth that could last up to five minutes; presenting a closing statement after huddling with their team to decide which aspects of the exchanges to emphasize; and being one of three evaluators who provided feedback on the strength of each team’s arguments the overall success of the deliberation. 

I purposely assigned students to a position knowing it might not necessarily align with their own because I wanted them to have a deeper knowledge of differing vantage points. In the fourth deliberation, we had a less structured discussion, which was productive and fun, but I didn’t see opposing arguments since students tended to be in sympathy with Black actors dealing with racial imbalances.

In an essay they each wrote about the whole experience, they seemed to appreciate the chance to fully research and understand a position they disagreed with. As one student put it, “Hearing a stance that I do not fully align with no longer ignites a defensive spirit within me.” She also observed: “There were times I would make a counterargument that aligned with my position that I did not agree with. Doing this taught me how to argue points convincingly on the basis of logic rather than personal bias.” Regarding the incorporation of deliberations into a class on racial issues, she concluded: 

“I am incredibly grateful that deliberative discussions were included in this course because it elevated my understanding of the films we watched. For example, watching The Searchers and Black Panther provided us with examples of positive and negative representations in film. However, having a discussion about that topic emphasized the real world implications of said representation. These discussions bridge the gap between film and reality. They had a positive effect on me personally as well. Not only am I a better researcher I am also more empathetic and aware of differing opinions, skills that are necessary for my other commitments like debate, mock trial, and daily interaction.”

For me, it was this experiential component that mattered above all else. From the essays the students wrote, it sounds like they gained the skills the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative seeks to promote.  

One course I teach at UNC Charlotte is a lower-division general education course, “Critical Thinking and Communication,” specifically offered for students in the University Honors Program. The class size typically ranges between 15 and 20 students, and the variety of life experiences and racial, gendered, cultural, and religious identities in the room offer rich opportunities for students to engage and learn from each other across difference. Because I come from a humanities background (English literature), I have typically taught college writing seminars and critical thinking courses with a set of short, thought-provoking readings and other materials to stimulate new ways of thinking and writing. While I kept this practice for a part of the course this semester, I also incorporated an emphasis on the notion of public discourse and deliberation, with support from the DeeP Collaborative colleagues – particularly through our “G2” subgroup and discussions with my partner, Rebecca Alt. 

Although facilitating class discussion is something I have experience with, deliberation was a new topic to me as a teacher. While making that reality clear to my students, I also introduced them to the purposes and elements of deliberative engagement with readings, diagrams, and concepts I learned from and alongside the DeeP Collaborative. This material, which included essays such as Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse’s chapter on “Why We Argue,” and Martin Carcasson’s writings on “wicked problems,” offered a view of the stakes and techniques we were setting out to examine, and practice. My students were exposed to the Kaner model and deliberative dispositions; then, they began to connect their own prospective inquiry topics together as they assembled, midway through the course, into “D-Teams.” These D Teams are similar to but distinct from the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative’s D Teams, which are groups of students and non-students that meet outside of class to discuss different topics.  

Composed of four students apiece, the D-Teams in my class addressed the following thorny questions: What role should taxpayers have in municipal decisions about large-scale sports and entertainment events? How can public health be made more accessible? How can the government best represent the local people it serves? How can AI and other technological innovations be reconciled with environmental sustainability? And, what should 21st century parenting look like in the United States?  

Each of these questions emerged from four or more peers’ independently researched inquiry projects (a campus requirement for this general education course). What I noticed, and did not plan, was that the choice of a fruitful topic for deliberation itself was, in this context, a first occasion for deliberation. The Community Agreements collectively established by the class during the first week of the semester helped arrange some ground rules relevant to all of our deliberations, and my students also were able to watch a video of a practice deliberation.  

Here, I was grateful to have the chance to collaborate with four DeeP Collaborative colleagues: my fellow Honors College staff member Mindy Adnot, and three College of Education faculty: Danyeal Morrison, Michelle Stephan, and Nick Triplett. Our practice deliberation (on the subject of poverty and meritocracy) was not perfect by any means – in fact, we all agree that it left a lot of room for improvement. However, it provided a good chance for my students to observe a deliberation in action and offered a picture of several “moves” that students could employ in deliberations of their own making. 

As their deliberation dates approached, each D-Team assembled from their inquiry projects a set of relevant discussions that developed into their official Deliberation Guide. This three-purpose document provided a training ground for the D-Team, an overview of the stakes and relevant subtopics for the audience (the rest of the class), and an array of provocative questions for the facilitator.  

To permit me to evaluate deliberations as a more detached observer, I recruited and trained two bright students – who were not in the class – during a short session that featured Steve Kalisky’s video demonstration of facilitation styles, clips from the practice deliberation with my DeeP colleagues, and a set of recommended readings (Carcasson, etc.). When the time for deliberations took place, participants were evaluated on three areas: 1) their sustained support for a particular stance on the issue; 2) their respectful, concise, and relevant responses to peers’ comments; and 3) their recruitment of material in their group’s deliberation guide. A fourth area for evaluation consisted of a written reflection on the experience: opportunities, challenges, and take-aways. 

Altogether, the implementation of deliberative pedagogy in this honors course made good sense and gained traction among students through the readings, exercises, and ultimately the deliberative sessions themselves. I’ll be doing my own reflections and listening to and reading over my DeeP Collaborative peers’ experiences to inform some fine-tuning ahead of the next time I teach the course, and as I share my own experience with colleagues across campus.