Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Teaching, by definition, is the process of sharing knowledge. The prompt asserts that students should be always skeptical of what they learn and not accepting it passively. In my view, I mostly agree with this suggestion and argue that students should have a certain degree of skepticism in their process of learning because it develops their sense of critical thinking; however, a surplus of doubt will backfire on the students' learning. First of all, in the education community, accepting everything passively is detrimental to creativity, innovation, and discovery. Students should always raise questions about what they are being taught because it reinforces their intellectual development. A skeptical student always has an eagerness to check the facts rather than a passive student who memorizes the facts, even if the information is wrong. What could have happened if we lived in a world free from skeptics? Galileo, for example, has raised skepticism about the established notion of the earth in the universe. Although the church considered his skepticism as untoward and heterodox, later, he was proven to be right. Skepticism will always lead students to open new doors of knowledge. Moreover, skepticism is a form of improving the status quo. While architecture students must learn the basic principles in buildings, they must also question current methods with the rise of new environmental and societal issues. For instance, decades ago, we witnessed a predominant strategy that does not take into consideration the surface area, in which the notion of multi-floor buildings for housing was mostly nonexistent. Today, with the increasing population, urban architecture has changed by exploiting sky building apartments. Without skeptical minds of the new generation who have questioned the efficacity of the old strategy for the long-term, we would be out of surface land for housing. The above example demonstrates that the skepticism of students is commendable because, without it, we would live in a static world full of obstacles that we would never overcome. Indeed, excessive and incessant skepticism can be considered as a form of insolence toward a teacher. It can be construed as a form of undermining the teacher's authority in the classroom that disturbs the upholding of a certain degree of decorum, which will impede the smooth flow of information in a positive debate between the student and the teacher. Yet the moderate and logical questioning of information is recommended for both teachers and students because the former will be able to correct any errors that may occur, and the latter will show perspicacity in critical thinking. In conclusion, those who argue that doubting teachers' information is a demeaning behavior are shortsighted. In fact, eradicating all forms of debate and questioning would create a dictatorial atmosphere that is not beneficial for the learning process. Not only the drawbacks of passive acceptance of information would be damaging to education, but the long-term benefits of the skeptic minds will likely be rewarded in the development of an efficacious pedagogical system. Today's seemingly baseless and immaterial skepticism is tomorrow's innovation.
Submitted by mahmoud djeb on
What to do next: