Two Ideals in Constructive Criticism

“Don’t take this the wrong way, but…”

I can’t think of a worse way to introduce criticism. Invariably, the receiver will be inclined to take the following comment personally. There’s something about the criticizer “sugar coating” the criticism that seems to make it that much more of a personal attack. I can honestly say that I would never recommend a person to open criticism in this way.

Criticism in itself, however, is an important part of progress. No one can make the claim to have never made a mistake, and it is often through the comments of others that these mistakes are recognized. It appears, then, that criticism exists in two forms: “good” and “bad”.

I’ll answer the easy question first. What is “bad” criticism?

When I was in sixth grade I had a teacher who I will rename Mrs. Blue. Mrs. Blue, I feel no remorse in saying, couldn’t have been suited worse for her job. She was quick to anger, a very unfortunate trait for a woman constantly surrounded by herd after herd of eleven-year-olds. What made it worse was that Mrs. Blue had seemingly resigned from trying to teach her students the wrongness of the actions that brought on her anger. Instead, she was willing only to express her violent emotions through, you guessed it, “bad” criticism.

I took some time deciding which of Mrs. Blue’s quotes I wanted to use as an example here; there are a lot of examples. Daily, she would take a student in “private” to reprimand them. Obviously, the availability of these quotes in my memory proves that her efforts for privacy were either completely half-hearted or intentional failures.

“I can’t believe you were screaming in the classroom!” I remember hearing her hiss at a classmate after they let out an outburst during a group activity. “You’re acting like a baby!” She sent the student back to his seat and grumpily continued class.

Mrs. Blue’s criticism is “bad” for apparent reasons: she insulted the student instead of pointing out the mistake and its negative effects. Criticism should not be designed to offend the receiver. Clearly, this works against the goal of the criticism, as the offended party is less likely to take into account the criticizer’s point of view. In Mrs. Blue’s case, I think she had been withstanding the same flaws of children for so long that she lost the energy required to continue being an effective teacher.

As I see it, “good” criticism has two main elements: it addresses a fixable problem and supports the comment with reasons why a change is necessary. Consider how differently the student would have felt if Mrs. Blue would have said, “You need to stop yelling, the other students can’t hear each other when you do.” The comment holds no less authority than her original wording, and has the added bonus of not being a blatant attack on the student.

Yes, I recognize that most criticisms between adults do not include the blatant offensiveness of Mrs. Blue. I’d argue that anything that doesn’t make a point of including the “good” criticism guidelines is a form of “bad” criticism. If the problem addressed is not fixable, the criticism can only work to hurt the relationship between the two parties without improving any performance. If no reason for necessity is understood, the criticized party may be inclined to believe the criticizer has no motivation to comment other than the desire to observe others’ flaws.

“Good” criticism will be an extremely important part of our class project. Tutors, by definition, will need to be critical of those they tutor. In this case, I think that sticking to my definition of “good” will be invaluable in keeping tutor/tutee relationships constructive. With luck, no one will end up taking anything “the wrong way”.