[HPforGrownups] Re: What's wrong with being bad ?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 101968

On 19 Jun 2004 at 2:58, kyntor70 wrote:

> Dreadnought wrote:
> 
> "We see Snape teaching Gryffindors and Slytherins - the fact that
> his strategy differs between the two *could* be a reflection of the
> fact that he acknowledges the different prevailing characteristics
> warrant different teaching methods. Gryffindors - courageous, and
> brave - are probably the least likely to suffer ill effects from
> biting sarcasm and verbal attacks than those less brave would be.
> Slytherins - ambitious - may well learn best in an environment
> where their egos are stroked."
> 
> Kyntor replies:
> 
> Do you really think verbal abuse would work well on Gryffindors?  I 
> would think that it would have the opposite effect on them.  It sure 
> has killed their enthusiasm for subject.  I don't ever remember a 
> Gryffindor actually looking forward to Potions.

Define 'work well'.

A student doesn't need to be enthusiastic about a subject, or to 
look forward to that subject, to do well in the subject. It can 
cetainly *help*, and make it easier - but it's not essential.

I doubt that Snape is the slightest bit concerned about whether the 
bulk of his students are enthusiastic about his classes. He's 
certainly not concerned about whether or not they enjoy them. So 
those factors aren't going to motivate him to teach them what they 
need to learn.

But is he concerned about them doing well in them? Yes, he is - if 
for no other reason than their results reflect on him. And that is 
the reason he teaches them.

I know some people think its critical that children enjoy their 
lessons, are enthusiastic about their classes, and look forward to 
them.  

But it really isn't. All those things are *desirable* if a teacher 
can manage them, but they are not absolutely critical.  

I learned plenty from classes I was incredibly unenthused about, 
and from classes I *dreaded* attending. I would have rather they 
were different - but it wasn't critical that they were.

Now, do I think Gryffindors may learn well from Snape?

Yes, I do - because one of the natural reactions to being goaded in 
the way Snape does is to defy that person. If a harsh teacher tells 
you are too stupid to learn something, sometimes that can make you 
learn it *just* to prove them wrong. The major problem with such 
methods is that they certainly *can* damage children is overused, 
or used with the wrong child.

But if you have a group of children selected for their personal 
bravery, it's fairly unlikely they are going to be damaged by such 
methods (this is why I have had concerns about Snape's methods with 
regards to Neville - because until Order of the Phoenix, I wasn't 
convinced Neville could handle this treatment - now I think he can 
- he does have the resilience and courage he needs to do so).

Is it the best way to teach the Gryffindors? I doubt it. But is it 
the best way that *Snape* is capable of using - possibly.
 
> Just because people are in the same house don't mean they all think 
> the same way (look at Harry and Hermione).  If Snape is trying find 
> teaching strategies to best fit his students why would the dividing 
> line fall neatly along house lines.

In an ideal world, and an ideal school, differentiation of teaching 
could be completely individual. However, in classrooms with twenty 
children (as we see for potions, IIRC) (often larger in the real 
world, of course), it is extremely difficult for a teacher to 
completely individualise their instruction.

Many teachers make no attempt at individualisation at all. Others 
try to do it by looking for the most *prominent* differences in the 
class, rather than every difference. In the case of Hogwarts, the 
most obvious prominent difference (with the possible exception of 
gender) is division by house.

Is it ideal? No - but if it has happening, then at least two 
methods are in use in the class, rather than just one - and that is 
some degree of improvement.
 
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that Snape's verbal abuse is 
> a teaching method that Snape has tailored specifically for the 
> Gryffindors.  If that were true, when he saw that it wasn't effective 
> (such as with Harry and Neville), he should change his teaching 
> methods towards them.  He does not.

I agree that *if* it is a deliberate teaching method, then he 
*should* be changing it in individual cases when its not working. 
But it is not at all uncommon for a teacher not to do this. 
Teachers in the real world *should* do this as well - and many do. 
But a great many simply do not.

There are lot of teachers who make no differentiation attempts 
whatsoever. There are many who make only token efforts such as 
trying only two methods in a class without individualisation when 
its needed. From a pegagogical point of view, this is certainly a 
bad thing - but it's not at all an unrealistic situation. It 
happens in classrooms all over the world, every single day.
 
> I can see where a stern but fair teaching method would benefit some 
> students.  I can understand that some students only thrive in 
> atmospheres were they are challenged.  But I find it very difficult 
> to beleive that a normal, adjusted teen could ever benefit from the 
> abuse and humiliation that Snape dishes out to his Gryffindor 
> students.

Well, I did (-8

So did, I'd say, well over half of my classmates - with most of the 
rest gaining no benefit, but also suffering no ill effects.  

While I accept I might not have been 'normal' and 'adjusted', I 
find it hard to believe that none of us were (-8 

> There was no excuse for Snape destroying Harry's vial in OotP.  
> That's not a teaching method that is deliberate sabotage of a 
> student's work. 

As I have said all along, there are certain individual things Snape 
has done that I find no excuse for. He's crossed the line on 
particular occasions, even in my view.

*However* there's a lot of venom aimed at his *general* pedagogical 
technique, and I don't think that is as bad as many other people 
seem to.  


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia