This article was found at http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9213/praise.htm
I have altered and edited it slightly, but the findings and most of the language have been left intact.Somewhat dated,the post is still pertinent but an interested party should attempt to find more information about the subject matter. I have changed and deleted very little from the post.
This entry shows a very important distinction between ineffective praise and effective encouragement as they relate to student performance. I believe the findings also have implications for constructing compliments in any given situation. I can hardly edit much more of the original without destroying the essential content needed for continuity.
I want to use this idea in a blog entry on a later date to illustrate effective communication for increased understanding and motivation. In no way am I attempting to pass off this writing as my own composition. A complete list of sources follows the content. I believe you will be amazed at the different results effected when both "praise" and "encouragement are applied. I have highlighted some particular sections of interest. Many thanks to Randy Hitz and Amy Driscoll.
ERIC Identifier: ED313108
Publication Date:1989-00-00
Author: Hitz, Randy - Driscoll, Amy
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Praise in the Classroom.
Most teachers praise students in order to enhance progress toward their goals. However, research poses the possibility that some common uses of praise may actually have negative effects in some or all of these areas. Some praise statements had the potential to lower students' confidence in their answers and to reduce the number of verbal responses they offered. Rowe (1974) found students indicated lower self esteem, responded in doubtful tones, and showed a certain lack of persistence or desire trying to keep up when praise was used. In addition, students frequently tried to "read" or check the teacher's eyes for signs of approval or disapproval. Meyer (1979) found that under some conditions, praise led recipients to have low expectations of success at difficult tasks, which in turn decreased the persistence and performance intensity at the task. Certain kinds of praise may actually set up even the most capable students for failure. No student can always be "good" or "nice" or "smart." But, in order to avoid negative evaluations, students tended not to take chances and did not attempt difficult tasks when given certain kinds of praise. Brophy (1981) points out, trying to use praise as a systematic reinforcer in a classroom setting is impractical. The sheer number of people in most classrooms inhibits effective repetition. Even if teachers were able to praise frequently and systematically, say once every five minutes, the average student would still be praised less than once every two hours. This research revealed the reality that much teacher praise is not deliberate reinforcement, but rather, is elicited by students--the students actually condition the teacher to praise them. Researchers also point out that, at best, praise is a weak reinforcer. Not all young children are interested in pleasing the teacher, and as children grow older, interest in pleasing the teacher diminishes significantly. Esler (1983) reports that correlations between teachers' rates of praise and students' learning gains are not always positive, and even when correlations are positive, they are usually too low to be considered significant.(Martin, 1977; Stringer and Hurt, 1981) found that praise can actually lessen self-motivation and cause children to become dependent on rewards. Green and Lepper (1974) found that once teachers began praising preschool children for doing something they were already motivated to do, the children became less motivated to do the activity.
Also students from different socioeconomic classes, ability levels, and genders may not respond in the same way to praise. The use of praise is further complicated by the fact that it may have differential effects depending on the type of achievement being measured. For example, praise may be useful in motivating students to learn by rote, but it may discourage problem solving.
What Does Work?
Kounin (1970) found that smoothness and maintenance of the momentum of classroom instruction and activities were the most powerful variables in controlling deviant behavior and maintaining student attention. Praise did not contribute to effective classroom management.
To praise is "to commend the worth of or to express approval or admiration." (Brophy, 1981) Dreikurs and others (1982) say that praise is usually given to a child when a task or deed is completed or is well done.
Encouragement, on the other hand, refers to a positive acknowledgment response that focuses on student efforts or specific attributes of work completed. Unlike praise, encouragement does not place judgment on student work or give information regarding its value or implications of student status.
Statements such as "You draw beautifully, Marc," or "Terrific job, Stephanie," are examples of praise. They are nonspecific, place a judgment on the student, and give some indication of the student's status in the group. Encouragement offers specific feedback rather than general comments.
For example, instead of saying, "Terrific job," teachers can comment on specific behaviors that they wish to acknowledge. Suggestions for giving good encouragement follow.
Encouragement
*Is teacher-initiated and private.
*Focuses on improvement and efforts rather than evaluation of a finished product.
*Uses sincere, direct comments delivered with a natural voice.
*Does not set students up for failure. Labels such as "nice" or "terrific" set students up for failure because they cannot always be "nice" or "terrific".
*Helps students develop an appreciation of their behaviors and achievements.
*Avoids competition or comparisons with others.
*Works toward self-satisfaction from a task or product.
Children have an intrinsic desire to learn. Ineffective praise can stifle students' natural curiosity and desire to learn by focusing their attention on extrinsic rewards rather than the intrinsic rewards that come from the task itself (Brophy, 1981). This kind of praise replaces a desire to learn with blind conformity, a mechanical work style, or even open defiance.
On the other hand, teachers who encourage students create an environment in which students do not have to fear continuous evaluation, where they can make mistakes and learn from them, and where they do not always need to strive to meet someone else's standard of excellence. Most students thrive in encouraging environments where they receive specific feedback and have the opportunity to evaluate their own behavior and work.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dreikurs, R., Greenwald, B., and Pepper, F. MAINTAINING SANITY IN THE CLASSROOM: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
Esler, W.K. A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON TEACHING. Paper presented at the Convention of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, Florida, 1983.
Green, D., and Lepper, M.R. "How to Turn Play Into Work." PSYCHOLOGY TODAY 8(4) (1974): 49-54.
Kounin, J. DISCIPLINE AND GROUP MANAGEMENT IN CLASSROOMS. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Martin, D.L. "Your Praise Can Smother Learning." LEARNING 5(6) (1977): 43-51.
Meyer, W. "Informational Value of Evaluative Behavior: Influences of Social Reinforcement on Achievement." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 71(2) (1979): 259-268.
Rowe, M.B. "Relation of Wait-Time and Rewards to the Development of Language, Logic and Fate Control: Part II--Rewards." JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING 11(4) (1974): 291-308.
Stringer, B.R., and Hurt, H.T. TO PRAISE OR NOT TO PRAISE: FACTORS TO CONSIDER BEFORE UTILIZING PRAISE AS A REINFORCING DEVICE IN THE CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION PROCESS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Speech Communications Association, Austin, Texas, 1981.
No comments:
Post a Comment