I am compelled to write on deeply concerning and unacceptable conduct of one of the Bettr Barista instructors.
The instructor's teaching methods have transcended the boundaries of effective pedagogy, venturing into the realm of blatant unprofessionalism and psychological harm.
First and foremost, the instructor's approach, characterized by a veneer of enthusiasm, seemingly modelling itself after a certain World Champion Barista with a similar stature, is fundamentally flawed and hypocritical. Its insistence on a self-indulgent, one-size-fits-all engagement style disregards the diverse learning needs and personalities of students. Distressingly, the instructor's behavior towards students who are less responsive to his methods is not just unfair but egregiously punitive. Not all students are comfortable with this sort of pseudo high-energy interactions that borders on masking its lack of patience and there are times the instructor seems to believe in some way reflect the students' commitment or potential as professionals. Students who are naturally slower or quieter in their disposition and thus hesitant to respond immediately to questions that they are unsure of, are met with an unamiable insistence from the instructor. This demand for answers from the victimized students is at times accompanied by an impatient and intimidating demeanor, including facial expressions and tone of voice, that creates an environment of fear and discomfort rather than one conducive to learning. The crux of the issue lies in the instructor’s insistence on singling out specific students for responses, rather than engaging the class as a whole. This method not only disrupts the flow and momentum of the lesson but also places undue pressure on individual students. Such a targeted approach can be particularly daunting for those with a more contemplative demeanor, leading to a heightened sense of anxiety and unease. The approach was in fact displayed far too many times not to suggest a contemptible malicious endeavor to insinuate embarrassment. A more professional and emotionally intelligent approach would involve posing questions to the entire class, allowing for a more inclusive and less confrontational environment. This would not only maintain the continuity and dynamism of the class but also encourage a more collaborative and supportive learning atmosphere, in which all students feel valued and at ease to participate. The instructor also practices passive-aggressive insinuation where it indirectly and cynically suggesting someone's negative behavior or attitude by a flawed self righteous sense of assumption, pre-judging their motivation based on their pace of learning and responsiveness rather than actual engagement or effort, without explicitly naming them but making it clear through context who is being referred to. This happens to supposingly singled out students whom he labelled as having 'bad attitudes' or being uninterested, suggesting taking things with lack of seriousness on the fact the course was on subsidy, especially when such accusations are publicly made even without explicit naming, is a gross misuse of the instructor's authority. This not only undermines the students' confidence but also erodes the trust and respect necessary for a healthy educational environment. The issue escalates with the instructor's practice of singling out students for so-called 'extra lessons' on the sidelines, which has a scent of public shaming disguised as pedagogical interventions as this wasn't not offered to other students who equally or needed real help. This alarming tactic, far from being educational, serves only to intimidate and belittle the unfortunate students. It is a stark deviation from the ethical standards expected of a professional educator. Furthermore, the instructor's debrief actions – particularly the attempt of keeping certain students back at the end of the day under the pretext of performance review announced in the wake of everyone, only to subject them to barely relevant side-chats rather than an intended review – is a manipulative, vile attempt to humiliate and borders on psychological harassment. This behavior is not only damaging to the mental well-being of students but also undermines the integrity of the educational process. Some victimized students had feedback the learning environment was so toxic that they had lost their interest in the subject matter, fearful of the subsequent follow up classes and even to the extent of dismissing any further engagement with the academy, let alone the mentioned instructor. Further compounding the instructor's unacceptable conduct, we were dismayed to learn that this individual exhibited similarly detrimental behavior towards others in different classes, as revealed through our mutual feedback with other fellow trainees on various instructors. In fact there were no instances that the instructor did not repeat this behaviour in other classes. It certainly seems the instructor makes a concerted effort to repeat the act for its own gratification.
In all likelihood it seems that the instructor, if not the academy, likely scored an Own Goal with all the above actions even if one strives assiduously to give the most imponderable benefit of doubt.
It is disheartening to see that despite the severity of the issues raised, there appears to be no visible change in either the instructor's behavior or the academy's handling of the situation. This inaction forces myself and others who have experienced similar treatment to seriously reconsider our engagement with the institution. As long as this instructor remains in his current position, it will be impossible for us to feel comfortable or supported in continuing our education at the academy.
Is Bettr Barista a good learning institution? I would agree there are a professional bunch there but the black sheeps need to be purged before one would seriously consider engaging them. Learners beware.
I am compelled to write on deeply concerning and unacceptable conduct of one of the Bettr Barista instructors.
The instructor's teaching methods have transcended the boundaries of effective pedagogy, venturing into the realm of blatant unprofessionalism and psychological harm.
First and foremost, the instructor's approach, characterized by a veneer of enthusiasm, seemingly modelling itself after a certain World Champion Barista with a similar stature, is fundamentally flawed and hypocritical. Its insistence on a self-indulgent, one-size-fits-all engagement style disregards the diverse learning needs and personalities of students. Distressingly, the instructor's behavior towards students who are less responsive to his methods is not just unfair but egregiously punitive. Not all students are comfortable with this sort of pseudo high-energy interactions that borders on masking its lack of patience and there are times the instructor seems to believe in some way reflect the students' commitment or potential as professionals. Students who are naturally slower or quieter in their disposition and thus hesitant to respond immediately to questions that they are unsure of, are met with an unamiable insistence from the instructor. This demand for answers from the victimized students is at times accompanied by an impatient and intimidating demeanor, including facial expressions and tone of voice, that creates an environment of fear and discomfort rather than one conducive to learning. The crux of the issue lies in the instructor’s insistence on singling out specific students for responses, rather than engaging the class as a whole. This method not only disrupts the flow and momentum of the lesson but also places undue pressure on individual students. Such a targeted approach can be particularly daunting for those with a more contemplative demeanor, leading to a heightened sense of anxiety and unease. The approach was in fact displayed far too many times not to suggest a contemptible malicious endeavor to insinuate embarrassment. A more professional and emotionally intelligent approach would involve posing questions to the entire class, allowing for a more inclusive and less confrontational environment. This would not only maintain the continuity and dynamism of the class but also encourage a more collaborative and supportive learning atmosphere, in which all students feel valued and at ease to participate. The instructor also practices passive-aggressive insinuation where it indirectly and cynically suggesting someone's negative behavior or attitude by a flawed self righteous sense of assumption, pre-judging their motivation based on their pace of learning and responsiveness rather than actual engagement or effort, without explicitly naming them but making it clear through context who is being referred to. This happens to supposingly singled out students whom he labelled as having 'bad attitudes' or being uninterested, suggesting taking things with lack of seriousness on the fact the course was on subsidy, especially when such accusations are publicly made even without explicit naming, is a gross misuse of the instructor's authority. This not only undermines the students' confidence but also erodes the trust and respect necessary for a healthy educational environment. The issue escalates with the instructor's practice of singling out students for so-called 'extra lessons' on the sidelines, which has a scent of public shaming disguised as pedagogical interventions as this wasn't not offered to other students who equally or needed real help. This alarming tactic, far from being educational, serves only to intimidate and belittle the unfortunate students. It is a stark deviation from the ethical standards expected of a professional educator. Furthermore, the instructor's debrief actions – particularly the attempt of keeping certain students back at the end of the day under the pretext of performance review announced in the wake of everyone, only to subject them to barely relevant side-chats rather than an intended review – is a manipulative, vile attempt to humiliate and borders on psychological harassment. This behavior is not only damaging to the mental well-being of students but also undermines the integrity of the educational process. Some victimized students had feedback the learning environment was so toxic that they had lost their interest in the subject matter, fearful of the subsequent follow up classes and even to the extent of dismissing any further engagement with the academy, let alone the mentioned instructor. Further compounding the instructor's unacceptable conduct, we were dismayed to learn that this individual exhibited similarly detrimental behavior towards others in different classes, as revealed through our mutual feedback with other fellow trainees on various instructors. In fact there were no instances that the instructor did not repeat this behaviour in other classes. It certainly seems the instructor makes a concerted effort to repeat the act for its own gratification.
In all likelihood it seems that the instructor, if not the academy, likely scored an Own Goal with all the above actions even if one strives assiduously to give the most imponderable benefit of doubt.
It is disheartening to see that despite the severity of the issues raised, there appears to be no visible change in either the instructor's behavior or the academy's handling of the situation. This inaction forces myself and others who have experienced similar treatment to seriously reconsider our engagement with the institution. As long as this instructor remains in his current position, it will be impossible for us to feel comfortable or supported in continuing our education at the academy.
Is Bettr Barista a good learning institution? I would agree there are a professional bunch there but the black sheeps need to be purged before one would seriously consider engaging them. Learners beware.