In bionet.women-in-bio Evans Kelly L <4klt5 at qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
: I prefer the non-confrontational mode of teaching rather than the
: challenging, stick-up for yourself, trial by fire mode. I think the
: non-confrontal mode accomplishes the same goal of teaching the student to
: think critically, but without making them question whose side your one.
True, as far as it goes, but do you notice the one thing this
style of instruction *doesn't* teach? Not to put too fine a
point on it, but it doesn't teach the student how to deal with
a confrontational situation.
In any world, real or academic, it is relatively painless to deal
with a non-confrontational situation. In fact, one really needs
no experience in order to come out of said situation reasonably
unscathed. Most people would prefer that all their interactions
be thus, and why not? It's the low stress option.
However, the fact remains, and will probably ever remain, that one
cannot rely of a given situation being 'low-stress' or non
confrontational. And the student/employee/associate rarely is
the one setting the tone. In those circumstances, an individual
who has never been challenged or confronted before, who doesn't
know how to conduct themselves in a hostile situation, is at a
decided disadvantage to one who has undergone 'trial by fire.'
The goal in confronting a student is only partially to teach them
to think critically, the rest is to give them experience in
arguing logically and dispassionately. To teach them to *listen*
to what their opponent is saying and argue the points...to *not*
respond from the gut, but rather, from the intellect. People
who have not been exposed to 'trial by fire' tend to have a nasty
habit of either breaking down or freezing up when they're suddenly
hit with something outside their experience. Neither response
does their reputation any good.
Conversely, an individual who argues strongly, logically and
is capable of calmly answering or disproving their opponent will
not only make their intellectual presence felt, but they will
probably earn the respect of their opponent as well.
It's like teaching lab safety. You hope to god there will never
be a need for it, but you want to be certain everyone will react
correctly if there is.
Deirdre
--
| Deirdre Sholto-Douglas | e-mail: finch at mcs.com |
| | |
******* The only acceptable substitute for intelligence *******
is silence.
