Monthly Archives: March 2015

Coming from a high school that only participated in debates, I never really had the opportunity to fully engage in a deliberation to experience what it was like as a moderator. For our secondary education deliberation, I was fortunate enough to be the moderator for the third option, and that was the moment I realized that the role of a moderator goes beyond what most people imagine; the role of a moderator is essential for running any form of communication, especially a deliberation.

As a moderator, the most important criterion that needs to be present is being neutral to the topic. Moderators are not supposed to influence what others think; rather they are only supposed to keep the deliberators on track so they do not venture too far off the given topic. Moderators should also be attentive and prepared. They need to have a general understanding of the subject so that they are able to guide the discussion. To do this, moderators pose questions to keep the deliberation moving along while keeping their distance and not including any of their input. After further analysis, I have realized that the best moderators are the ones who let the deliberators do the talking, while they just watch as a bystander and only intervene when necessary.

Being a moderator of a deliberation, I have noticed that there is not much that moderators have control over in the discussion. One of the few things they do have control over, however, is the flow of conversation. They decide what questions to pose, and who answers these said questions all with a point of a finger or the calling of a name. What is even more interesting is what the moderators do not have control over. Moderators cannot control what an individual says or add any input to that remark. They are supposed to let the discussion take its course of action and only intervene when the deliberators are getting off track. Theoretically, moderators should have control over what is being discussed during the deliberation with the questions they pose. In reality, however, the conversation can go anywhere as long as it is still on topic. It all depends on how the deliberators respond to each question. The moderator cannot do anything about it and must observe as a bystander to see where the conversation ends up.

After being a moderator for one of our options in our deliberation, I realized that there were some pros and cons that were associated with the techniques we used to fulfill this role. I found that the most successful discussions that occurred were due to the fact that the questions the moderators posed were quite vague. Having vague, unbiased questions really brought the discussion to life and made the individuals participating think critically without being influenced by others. One of the only aspects that didn’t make the deliberation as effective as it should have been was the process of calling on people to speak next. This only included the individuals who usually participate in class, limiting the different viewpoints to only a couple. It was challenging trying to get everyone engaged, especially the ones who were placed in the corners of the room. Having the same ideas passed around from the same people limited our deliberation, and the only way to avoid that is for the moderators to encourage the quieter students to participate.

Now that I look at it, our deliberation had a hodgepodge of techniques as moderators switched positions and I feel that every way was beneficial for our discussion. Overall, the deliberation went just as I thought it would and gave insight to all participants.