[HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 157948

On 6 Sep 2006 at 2:37, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> Well, IMO Snape did not try, because we don't see it on the page. It 
> reminds me of the "cabinet" thread a bit now. Of course you can 
> argue that he tried anything, but you ask me to prove double 
> negative. It is not on the book page, so IMO Snape is being lasy 
> with Neville, that is again if he wants to teach him at all.

Shaun:

No, I'm not asking you to prove a double negative - rather I'd say I'm asking is that people 
consider the possibility that just because it's not on the page, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I 
think people should think about - "Would I *expect* to see any evidence of Snape having 
helped Neville if he had been?" and if the answer to that is no, then why is its absence at all 
surprising?

Now you may think you would see signs - and that's fine - if you think there would be signs of 
this in the text, then their absence certainly is a reason for suspicion.

Personally, I would not expect to see major signs. We really don't see evidence of any of the 
teachers at Hogwarts going out of their way to support individual students, which either 
means they don't do it - in which case why are we picking on Snape? Or they do it and JKR 
doesn't think it's a big enough deal to put it in the books.

But the fact is, I do see some minor signs of Snape helping Neville - I really do. The first 
lesson:

"'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I 
suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'"
(PS, p103).

Yes, Snape calls him an idiot - he also tells him explicitly what he did wrong. If he just wants 
to pick on the kid, he didn't need to do that. Telling a child exactly what they have done wrong 
is good teaching. Neville's injured, so we don't get to see any more of what he does because 
he - quite properly - sends Neville to get medical attention.

And with the Trevor incident, again, Snape gives Neville *explicit* details as to what he had 
done wrong and gives him a chance to fix it. That's *good* teaching - it really is. 

"'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me 
say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of 
leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?'"  

And to go further, he also allows the smartest child in the class to help Neville fix what he has 
done - yes, he punishes Hermione for doing so - which means he *knows* she is doing it. But 
he doesn't stop her. Again, that's good teaching and entirely appropriate.

He also gives Neville an incentive to get it right - and again that is entirely appropriate in itself. 
I think the incentive - get it right or your pet dies - is way over the top - but nonetheless the 
teaching methodology is valid. And so is the result - Neville gets the chance to achieve some 
success in a class he finds difficult. His potion ultimately works.

Snape is teaching Neville here - and if he is still teaching Neville after over two years of 
Neville making repeated mistakes in his classroom, then  I really have to assume he has 
been trying to teach Neville the whole time.
 
Alla:

> I mean, you can  even argue that Snape praises Neville at the 
> lessons we 
> don't see, I guess. IMO JKR put everything about Snape teaching that 
> she considers important on the page. It is not like his teaching 
> methods are the final mystery ready to be revealed  same as his 
> allegiances are IMO. I think all we need to know about him as a 
> teacher is in the  book already. Although I suppose  it is not true 
> if one holds a view that Harry cannot hear and see and does not 
> accurately transcribe the words from Snape mouth. As you know - I do 
> not hold that view, I don't buy that Snape's nastiness is "Harry 
> filter", since I am having lots of trouble imagining how what Snape 
> says to Harry and Neville can be explained away as nice. T

Shaun:

It's not a matter of it being *nice*. Snape is NOT nice, not by any measure of the word. But he 
doesn't have to be to be a good teacher. As has been said, teaching is not a popularity 
contest. I know some very nice teachers who are actually absolutely incompetent. Nice might 
be enough if you're teaching infants - maybe - beyond that it's a minor component of 
teaching. There's nothing wrong with being nice - but being nice isn't required.

Even if JKR did put everything about Snape's teaching that she considers important on the 
page, as I've indicated above, quite a bit of what we see can in my view, be seen as good 
and valid pedagogy, if a person looks at it with a teachers eyes. JKR does have some 
teaching experience - if she really wanted to portray Snape as an awful teacher, I think she 
could steer clear of anything approaching good practice in his portrayal of him - in both the 
examples I've quoted above, merely leaving out the explicit instruction would do that. If she 
has put in what she considers important, I would assume she knew what she was doing in 
putting that in.

> Alla:
> 
> Yes, of course in RL that would be true, but I would find it 
> extremely strange that "off the book page" Snape would be a 
> different character than what we would have seen on the page. And 
> again I am not talking about his other mysteries, but I think 
> teaching methods are all there. Otherwise one can say that Snape off 
> the book page in the Potions classes we don't see is being really 
> fair to Trio and I don't think   there is a support for this 
> argument, unless 
> you can point me to canon hints that Snape as teacher is that 
> different to Gryffindors off page. IMO of course.

Shaun:

The thing is, I am not just looking at what is not on the page. I can see signs of this on the 
page, quite easily.  

I'm also aware that with the exception of Neville, most of Snapes students do apparently 
learn his subject effectively - we're told in Order of the Phoenix that the standard is high. That 
doesn't just happen. 

Alla:
 
> I mean, yes, sure in book 7 one of Snape's revelations in his dying 
> breath can be - I tried so hard to teach you ungrateful brats, I 
> tried so many things with you Longbottom, but you just did not do 
> it, so I decided to become your Boggart in hopes that this work.
> 
> But I mean, IMO the fact that Snape runs his mouth on Neville on the 
> very first lesson speaks very strongly against Snape trying 
> **anything** but scare tactics.


Shaun:

It doesn't need to be in the last book - I think it's there in the very first.

'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking,' he began. He spoke 
in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor McGonagall, 
Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. 'As there is little foolish wand-
waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really 
understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the 
delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the 
senses.... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death - if you aren't 
as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach.'"  

That statement to me is a statement that really does seem to come from a man who *loves* 
his subject and who *desperately* wants to teach it - 

'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking'

'I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death'

This is a man who *wants* to teach his subject.

Also incidentally - I notice that in one of the very first statements she makes about him, JKR 
*favourably* compares an aspect of Snapes teaching ability to that of McGonnagall - 

'He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor 
McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort.'

If JKR is putting down what she thinks is important about Snape's teaching - that statement 
to me is very telling. Praise right at the start. Before we see anything else.  

> Alla:
> 
> Why? I see **zero** hints in canon that he indeed **tried** anything 
> else but scaring Neville off. You may wish that he tried something, 
> you may think that he tried something, because that is what decent 
> teacher would have done, that is what you would have done, but I 
> don't consider Snape to be a decent teacher and I think of Snape as 
> a teacher after I read scenes in the book, I am not going to imagine 
> scenes that IMO contradict everything we see of Snape teaching style 
> in the book. Am I making sense?

Shaun:

Yes, you are making sense. I just think I am seeing things that are different from those that 
you see. I don't just wish he tried something - I see him trying it. Explicit instruction as to 
mistakes. The opportunity to correct those mistakes and achieve success, with the help of 
the best student in the class. That is there on the page. Arguably, he also provides an 
incentive, but that is so fraught, I'm not sure it counts. 

 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes, if you consider what Snape does expending efforts on 
> Neville, I consider Snape taking the easiest approach - scaring the 
> kid in the oblivion, and since he took this approach from the very 
> first lesson, I think that it is rather reasonable conclusion to 
> make that Snape took this route right after Neville made his very 
> first mistake.
> 
> Snape does not seem to give this kid a chance and IMO indeed wrote 
> him off as failure right away.

Shaun:

Scaring the kid into oblivion from the very first lesson?

He called him an idiot boy - not nice, but for an 11 year old boy sent off to boarding school, I 
really can't see that that would figure highly in his fears. And if he is so sensitive as to be hurt 
so badly by that, then:

"'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish person wrote down this 
week's passwords and left them lying around?'"

must have been truly and utterly devastating to his psyche.

Yet, McGonnagall doesn't seem to attract anywhere near the vitriol that Snape does.

If Snape was so cruel to Neville by calling him idiot boy - what does that say about 
McGonnagall calling him an abysmally foolish person?

Frankly, in my view, both were deserved, considering what he'd done. But deserved or not, 
we see  that was Snape does isn't unique to him as a teacher.

And as I have said - when Snape is still trying to teach Neville after more than two years, I 
really can't see any evidence he wrote him off as a failure. Teachers don't waste effort on a 
kid they've written off - and I have seen that happen.

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