Praise Free Essays

Professional practice-rewards and sanctions essay The use of praise within the primary classroom will use this essay to analyses the effective and destructive often harmful use of praise as a reward system within the primary classroom. Firstly it is important to explain what a reward system actually is In terms of a primary classroom, According to the universal Dictionary, (19981†² a reward is â€Å"something given or received in recompense for worthy behavior†. A reward system therefore, is a system adopted by either a class teacher, adult or as a whole school ethos for the delivery of rewards or positive academic or social behavior during the school day. We will write a custom essay sample on Praise or any similar topic only for you Order Now From experience, the reward scheme does not have to finish at the end of the school day and can extend into what children achieve during their own time, whether this is through commendations or simply through public use of praise, perhaps in an assembly, as a form of verbal reward. All reward systems are based around the principal of two forms of praise; these are either extrinsic motivators; these tend to be based around variations of the token economy, or intrinsic motivators. Praise as a system in its own eight falls into the intrinsic motivators category as there is no extrinsic or token reward’ physically given to the children. â€Å"Intrinsic motivation occurs when we act without any obvious external rewards. We simply enjoy an activity or see It as an opportunity to explore, learn and actualities our potentials. † Con et al (2010). Praise is a crucial part of all reward systems whether intrinsic or extrinsic, but praise can be a reward system on its own. When praise is used as a reward system within a primary school classroom, according to Sutherland, et al (2002) â€Å"praise is positively related to Intrinsic motivation among students† which Is linked directly to the SHE strands of the National Primary Curriculum and the idea of fostering a culture of intrinsic motivation to achieve both academically and within normal social parameters is a cornerstone of primary education. Sutherland argument can be applied to the theory of praise as an Intrinsic reward system, suggesting praise may be a practical method by which to nurture a self-perpetuating cycle of growth, reinforcement and self-worth amongst primary school aged children. Sutherland argument is given rather vigor by Trustees, (2008) who suggested â€Å"a ratio of 4:1 positive to negative feedback has an optimal effect on students learning and behavior†, however according to Episcopate, J, et al (201 1), â€Å"little research has examined the effects of training teachers to provide specific ratio of praise to behavior correction within the classroom setting. Trellis’s reasoning does seem to make logical sense and other research does reach similar generic conclusions. Usual (2008) recommended a ratio of six or eight positive to one negative within adult-student interactions, which is an embellishment of Trellis’s theory. Before the government draw up new plans to train all adult s within the classroom to work towards these ratios, it should be considered that more research Into the effectiveness and also practicality of these ratios needs to take place. Within the primary classroom setting the practical application of ratios for positive to negative comments is potentially unfeasible and targets which would in effect render the praise worthless as a becomes more of a token gesture rather than an intrinsic reward for a Job well done. Sutherland argument for praise being used to develop intrinsic motivation within children of the remarry age bracket, relies upon positive reinforcement which has to be implemented by the class teacher using a best practice model, with a high ratio of praise-to-behavior correction technique. Clinics-Ross et al, (2008) states that â€Å"classrooms in which teachers use higher rates of reprimand and other reactive strategies tend to have higher rates of student miss-behavior. † This demonstrates how praise is far more effective a tool that reprimand within behavior management of a primary classroom. Furthermore, as the earlier ratios imply, reprimands can be far more damaging to a child’s self-esteem and academic confidence then even over SE of praise. If reprimands are used too often this could possibly lead to children becoming disengaged with learning and also foster lack of self-belief within children. Teachers need to be consistent with their approach to praise. According to Cooley, S (2001) there are basic rules to behavior management which includes consistency as well as others†¦ â€Å"Be definite ‘l know what I want. ‘ Be aware ‘l know what will happen if I don’t get what I want. ‘ Be calm and consistent ‘l am always fair and consistent with you. ‘ Give them structure ‘I know where we’re going. ‘ Be positive you’re doing great! These rules, when applied to the classroom environment along with goal setting to increase the chance for praise and performance, will give teachers the opportunity to use praise effectively to manage behavioral expectations and academic achievement within their classroom. In order to use praise effectively however, there are other considerations that the teacher must apply to each individual class, and undeniably each individual child. Conceivably the most important consideration is that children need to Want’ to receive praise. Without this ‘need’, praise is an ineffective reward. Potentially there are various reasons why children might not want to receive praise from a class teacher or indeed any other adult in the classroom. According to Docking, J (2002) â€Å"the age of the child, whether the recipient is a boy or a girl, whether the praise is for work or conduct, and with the teacher is in charge of a whole class or Just a small group or an individual† are all variables that could hypothetically lead to praise not working as a reward for an individual child’s behavior, or actually being totally or partially ineffective as a behavioral management technique. According to Brakeman, E et al (2013)†¦ Many adults use praise as ’emotional nourishment’ for children, in an attempt to help children feel better about themselves. Adults might therefore be especially likely to praise those children who seem to need it the most – children with low self-esteem. † This strategy could have unexpected side-effects for any child with low self-esteem, whether that be directly or indirectly related to his or her academic achievement. Brakeman goes on to discuss in his study how children with low self-esteem are, when exposed to a specific type of praise, potentially predisposed to feeling ashamed following allure. Evidently any child feeling any feelings of inferiority, shame or vulnerability as a direct result of praise being used, would be highly counter-productive within the mind adults need to exercise caution when selecting the correct type of praise for the individual child. A teacher will have the choice to differentiate between two distinct types of praise that could impact each child in very differing ways, both positively and negatively. Of the two types of praise the first is person praise, (praise for personal qualities or directed towards children’s abilities) and the second type of praise is recess praise, (praise directed towards a child’s effort). Brakeman states that â€Å"person praise contributes to a self-perpetuating downward spiral of self- derogation. This demonstrates that, in children with low self-esteem, the link between praise and conditional regard could be a self-replicating issue in that the more praise the receive the more they will avoid it. This is linked with Gamins Deck, (1999) â€Å"Person praise may trigger these children’s feelings of conditional regard and consequently makes them feel unworthy following failure. † With this in mind, praise when used as a general reward system could potential ly lead to a detrimental undermining of some children self-esteem, thus undermining the very nature of a reward system. This point is not to say that teachers should not praise children. In actual fact the research of Hindering Leper (2002) suggests that process praise is actually beneficial for children’s academic motivation. This point is also made by Mueller Deck (1998) â€Å"praise for effort may help children persist in the face of academic failure. † The general agreement between the different research papers is that any adults issuing praise needs to carefully consider the individual before making any public or indeed private praise. This theory seems to be related directly to the idea of process praise as discussed by Brakeman et al. There is a large proportion of academic research and Journal articles that points towards using process praise in a responsible manner to great effect within the primary classroom. Process praise is described within the literature as to being highly beneficial not only in promoting good academic results, but also in promoting academic resilience amongst children. Academic resilience is of vital importance so that children learn from their mistakes as opposed to being deterred by them. This appears to be in contrast to the general consensus centered around person praise, as it is widely regarded as damaging for children, especially those with low self-esteem to be the recipients of too much person praise, as it can lead to a self-perpetuating downward spiral in both their attitude towards learning and their academic progress. This general statement can only be described as true within children who already are predisposed to low self-esteem. The research of Burlingame implies that children with high self-esteem will benefit from both kinds of praise. From experience forever children with high self-esteem are often praised perhaps too frequently, this can lead to an almost extrinsic motivation effect whereby the children see the praise being given as an extrinsic reward thus fostering a completely unintentional ethos within the classroom or indeed the whole school, whereby children expect to be praised and could potentially end up conditioned to only continue working or behaving to a consistently high standard when praise is being handed out periodically by the class teacher. This adverse effect needs to be avoided; teachers should note â€Å"praise, like penicillin, must not be administered haphazardly. Ignition (1965) Another consideration the teachers when attempting to decide how to give indeed an even more desirable effect could be achieved through non-verbal praise. Non-verbal praise could take on the form of a simple smile, a thumbs-up from across the classroom or even a note quietly written on a student piece of work. Non-verbal forms of praise can be highly useful when dealing with children of low self-esteem countering the issues created from person praise. Non-verbal cues also play a crucial role in communication; according to Spark (2013) furthermore they are especially important when interpreting ambiguous verbal messages. As such non-verbal forms of praise and communication are an important tool when differentiating praise as a reward system for individual members of a whole class. Having reviewed the current academic theories surrounding praise as a reward system, looking at both the positives and negatives associated with praise as a system I can draw several conclusions. The first of which is that praise as an intrinsic reward system is key in fostering a culture of motivation to achieve both academically and socially within primary school children. This is drawn from Sutherland research stating that praise is positively related to intrinsic motivation among students†. The counterarguments raised predominantly by Brakeman are also highly compelling, as they appear to condemn the use of some aspects of praise. The issues that can arise when praise is used inappropriately within the primary classroom, as well as the unexpected side-effects for children with low self-esteem mean that praise can sometimes have a seemingly paradoxical effect. This is summarized by Spark, et al (2013) who states†¦ â€Å"Blame after failure sometimes leads to the impression that the recipient has a high ability. In contrast praise after success can lead to an inference of lower ability. † Kappa’s research links in with the theories of Brakeman because person praise is the style of praise that would be linked to the inference of lower ability. Process praise however, which can be generically given across the different ability groups, has no such inferences. Pomeranian, M et al (2013) also raise an interesting point that seems to condemn praise when used inappropriately†¦ â€Å"The more personal praise mothers used, the more children subsequently held an entity theory of intelligence and avoided challenge over and above their earlier functioning n these dimensions† far from praise encouraging children in their attempts to challenge and better themselves, person praise appears to detrimentally affect children’s academic drive. If Pomeranian, M is to be believed then all teaching and support staff should adopt a system whereby praise is used sparingly and also in a manner that avoids person praise. Furthermore, process praise should be used throughout the class without highlighting different ability groups. In this manner the paradoxical effect discussed by Spark could be avoided. In practice the literature seems to suggest that simply using praise on its own as a reward system is not efficient to develop children’s own intrinsic reward systems and develop and ethos of intrinsic motivation both academically and socially. How to cite Praise, Papers