Inclusive Decision-Making

Form groups of eight students. In each group, there are two key roles: the facilitator and the decision-makers. 

The group will randomly appoint one member as the facilitator, who has a crucial role in guiding the decision-making process. Facilitators will choose one of the two fictitious scenarios and follow the hand out for the facilitators to ensure all steps are executed properly.

The facilitator provides the structure and supportive atmosphere for open dialogue and should actively ensure that every voice is heard, regardless of whether the opinion is popular or unique within the group. Meanwhile, the other seven members of the group will act as decision-makers. They bring varied ideas and viewpoints and are actively involved in brainstorming, discussing and voting on the final decision.

The facilitator chooses one of the two fictitious scenarios (listed in the handout). Each group is tasked with collaboratively making a group decision with a specified budget. As the facilitator explains, this budget must be spent entirely on one activity, donation or initiative, rather than on multiple separate activities, donations or initiatives or divided among various options. Both scenarios require the group to decide genuinely and vote on one specific and budget-realistic idea, instead of finding a compromise among multiple or unrealistic options.

The facilitator begins by allowing the group one minute for brainstorming, after which they invite the group members (in no specific order) to present their ideas for a single activity, donation or initiative and write the expressed ideas on a flip chart or whiteboard. The goal is for the group to write down a minimum of 5 or 6 ideas on a flip chart or whiteboard, ensuring a diverse range of options for consideration.

The facilitator encourages the group to delve deeper into the group’s decision-making process by actively seeking alternative and opposing viewpoints. To accomplish this, the facilitator will use the prompts designed to stimulate discussion on contrary ideas. This emphasises a welcoming and non-judgemental atmosphere, encouraging participants to share unconventional alternative viewpoints and invite contrary perspectives or divergent thoughts.

This step encourages group members to think creatively and challenge the status quo, ensuring that minority opinions are not only expressed, but also given sincere consideration. The aim is to uncover a diverse variety of viewpoints and ideas, especially those that may not align with the majority opinion, and to foster a deeper understanding and exploration of all possible options.

The group is ready to move to the next step once they have added a minimum of 1 or 2 new and ‘outside–the–box’ ideas to the other ideas on the flip chart or whiteboard.

Once all ideas are proposed and listed, the facilitator guides the group through a structured decision-making process. It starts with one minute of personal and silent reflection, during which each person internally assesses and decides which ideas they support.

Next, the facilitator begins the first voting round. As the facilitator reads each idea from the flip chart or whiteboard, group members vote for their preferred option(s). Votes are cast openly by raising hands, allowing the facilitator to tally and visibly record these. Members can vote for more than one proposal, including their own, as long as they fully agree that the listed idea is an exciting and strong solution to the problem. If in doubt, members are advised not to vote for the idea.

In this round, the group identifies the most favoured idea, also known as the ’majority vote’, based on the highest vote count. The facilitator notes the names of members who support this winning idea on the flip chart or whiteboard, ensuring transparency regarding individual preferences. As soon as there is a majority vote, the group can continue with the next step.

The facilitator fosters a dialogue that prioritises inclusivity and collaboration by engaging only with members who voted ‘no’ to the majority vote proposal, creating a space for them to voice their concerns and suggest possible enhancements. This process refines the winning idea by integrating the minority viewpoint, ensuring their perspectives are considered. Meanwhile, members who supported the original idea (the ‘yes-voters’) are encouraged to listen actively, understanding the concerns and suggestions of the ‘no-voters’. This fosters empathy and a deeper understanding within the group.

Using targeted prompts from the handout, the facilitator guides the ‘no-voters’ in identifying constructive additions to the majority vote idea. The focus here is on what can be added or tweaked to make the proposal more inclusive and appealing without changing its essence fundamentally, to create a version that can win the support of the entire group.

Once the ‘no-voters’ agree on an enhancement that makes the proposal more attractive, the facilitator arranges a new round of voting. The hope is that both the initial supporters (the ‘yes-voters’) and the ‘no-voters’ will unite in favour of this improved proposal. This process, which may involve negotiation and iterative modifications, is crucial for reaching a resolution that honours both majority and minority viewpoints. The facilitator’s role in mediating these discussions is key to guiding the group towards a consensus that satisfies all members and aligns them with a collective vision.

After achieving a consensus that all members feel good about, a sense of shared ownership and mutual respect is fostered, demonstrating the group’s dedication to inclusive, empathetic and collaborative decision-making.

Assessment as learning aims to strengthen the learning process and the development of metacognitive skills. It empowers students to direct their own learning and to become independent, critical self-assessors.

Self-assessment

Self-regulated learning

Self-assessment questionnaire and reflective questions