It was an interesting experience to be able to have an actual say in how the future exams will be formatted. Personally I think I used the collaboration tactic. There wasn't much debate over whether or not the class wanted the curb and extra credit so aggreeing to that was pretty seamless. The real issues started when as a class we were trying to decide how best to format the next exam. Being that the decision had to be unanimous it was hard to find "common ground" for all of us. For example, Some people hated essays while others were partial to them. In an effort to voice my oppinion and accomplish to have my ideas recognized I think used a collaborative tactic. I appreciated everyones input as some ideas were really good and others had some potential. I think I agreed with the majority of the class on most of the issues. Had i felt strongly on any in particular perhaps I would've been more of a "Compete to win" type of participant. According to the ideas being presented and considering my grade on the previous exam I felt being collaborative would be the best way to get to where i can benefit as well as other classmates who might appreciate a different element to the next exam. I did see people use avoidance perhaps as a result of their confidence in test taking or even a lack of faith that we would ever agree on something unanimously. Regardless of why they would chose to participate they still should have. A stream of worthy ideas regardless of their source's attitude would have been valuable to the class as a whole. As i mentioned earlier I was pretty satisfied with most of the ideas presented and the outcome. If at any point I would've felt as if I better say something because my grade is bound to suffer due to an exam structure, then I would have used a compete to win tactic or have been more proactive in comprimising.
Overall thanks to the folks in the front of the classrooom Compromising we managed to get to what I feel is a situation that is fair to all of us and at least better than what we had prior.
