Today, I made a decision. I'm not sure if I should be proud of it, or if I would do it the same way again, but it was definitely intentional. In a class I'm taking, students are giving presentations, and the professor has asked us to give honest critiques with the intent to help students improve.
One student's presentation was interesting, but they mumbled so much that I couldn't understand half of what they were trying to get across. As a critique, I told them, perhaps a little bluntly, "I don't know you, and you don't know me. I hope you won't think of me as a mean person for saying this, but I think it would be doing you a disservice not to. Your presentation is my least favorite that we've had so far because you mumbled. It was very problematic to me, since I couldn't tell what you were saying." He took the critique gracefully, then explained why he was mumbling before class ended.
I've considered what I said and how I said it, and wonder if there wasn't a more tactful way to say it. My hope was to emphasize to this student how important it is to work on his mumbling problem.
On the flip side of the coin, I've received criticism from individuals who overemphasized the importance of things that they thought were critical. Several years ago, one person went to great lengths to embarrass me for "lack of preparation" whenever they could, despite the fact that I was prepared. Besides making life difficult and hurting my feelings, it gave me a bad reputation that was unwarranted.
More recently, I had a professor ask me a technical question, and then attempted to embarrass me in front of the class. While reading a scientific research article about breast cancer, he asked me in front of the class, "What does the article mean by the secondary structure of RNA?"
I replied, "The primary structure of RNA is the sequence of nucleotides. The secondary structure is how that line of nucleotides folds up on itself."
He responded, "Are you sure?"
I said, "I'm reasonably sure."
He responded, "Would you bet me $100?"
I said, "So, if I'm right you'll give me $100?"
He responded, "No, if you're wrong, you'll give me $100."
I said, "No. That's a bad bet." (After all, who is going to be the judge of how accurate my response is.... the guy who'll be gaining $100?!?)
He then stated, "I happen to know what the secondary structure of RNA is..." and he proceeded to describe the secondary structure in greater detail.
Now, my answer was right, and if he had asked me the specifics that he pointed out, I would've been able to answer about them correctly. However, he concluded by stating, "I don't want to know what you think, unless you know. You think you're a charming, fun guy, but you're just wrong."
I've considered the event over and over, and I see absolutely no educational value in his making an example of me. I knew what the secondary structure of RNA was. I wasn't guessing or making it up. My answer lacked the specificity that he wanted, but his questioned lacked sufficient specificity to warrant a longer answer.
So, at some point, correcting people needs to be toned down, especially when it isn't really necessary or helpful. But sometimes it is helpful. After all, where would we all be without a healthy serving of constructive criticism. Where do we draw the line?
I'd like to propose the following rules about constructive criticism. They may apply to other aspects of life, as well.
1) Criticism should be respectful. All criticism should be given with the understanding that the receiver is a valuable and worthwhile individual. It should be given with a tone of voice, using wording, and at a time that demonstrates respect for the individual.
2) All criticism should be of a useful nature. Correcting people over trivialities, over opinions, or over vague issues are not generally helpful. At times, things that might otherwise seem trivial can be important, but on a day by day basis, I believe we have a tendency to overemphasize the unimportant when correcting others.
3) The goal should be to help the recipient to improve. Self aggrandizement is not a good reason to correct someone. A casual interest in correcting others is not a good reason to correct someone. Heck, even the duty to correct someone (as a teacher should) is not, in its own right, a good enough reason.
4) Corrections should be timely and relevant. Correcting someone about something they did weeks, or even years ago may not be useful, depending on the situation. Correcting someone on something that can't possibly be fixed is unlikely to be useful.
If I could go back, I would probably not tell the person that their presentation was my least favorite. Despite that this was true, I think that statement was disrespectful and unhelpful. However, I do feel that it was important to tell him that his mumbling stopped me from understanding the presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment