Praise: What Does the Literature Say? What Are the Implications for Teachers?

Miriam Ferguson Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour, Cluster 18, Bay of Plenty

ABSTRACT The Need to Self-Evaluate This paper examines the literature in the area of One of the seminal studies on praise was praise. It considers definitions of praise, types of conducted by Brophy (1981). He argued that praise and the effects of praise on learning and praise has been “seriously oversold” (p. 19). behaviour, particularly as it relates to motivation. Brophy found that teacher praise was often The evidence base for effective praise is discussed infrequent, non-contingent, global rather than and recommendations for classroom practice are specific, and determined more by the students’ highlighted. need for praise than by the quality of student conduct or achievement. He argued that teacher Research paper praise is often reactive to and under the control of student behaviour, dependent on the teacher’s Keywords: Motivation, praise personality and style and the students’ personality characteristics. Thus “teacher praise often was not deliberate reinforcement but instead a spontaneous PRAISE reaction to student behaviour, elicited by the The use of praise in learning has a long history. quality of student performance or by students bid As early as the 12th century it was reported that for praise” (Brophy,1981, p. 11). He concluded that children were awarded figs and honey in the rather than just assuming its effectiveness, teachers teaching of the Torah. Today, praise is a technique who wished to praise effectively would have to that comes to mind as a positive behaviour assess how individual students respond to praise, management tool. It is also thought to provide and in particular, how they process its meaning encouragement to students, to help build self- to make sense of their ability, effort and outcome esteem, and to build a close teacher-student of their effort - to praise well, rather than to praise relationship. It is an integral part of New Zealand often. classrooms. So how can we define praise? How can we use it? And how effective are we in our use Bear (2010) agrees saying ”overall, research of praise? indicates that how often students are praised and rewarded is much less important than the manner in which it occurs” (p. 115). Definition The definition of praise is to express approval or This suggests there is a need (as Partin et al., admiration of; commend; extol (Dictionary.com). 2010, concluded), to self-evaluate our teaching Within the classroom this would mean to express behaviour in order to increase the application of positive teacher affect. It goes beyond the level of the use of teacher praise to reinforce students’ simple feedback, which can be neutral, negative or appropriate behaviour and/or learning. positive. How then, can we praise well? Driekurs (cited in Cope, 2007; Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 1963) makes a distinction between praise Global Praise and encouragement. Praise, he says, is consistent with an authoritarian approach, which lowers Global praise is non-targeted praise with self-esteem, provokes disruptive behaviour with comments such as ‘awesome work’ or ‘this class the outcome more important than the process. is fantastic’. Brophy found that this kind of praise Encouragement, he explains, is the reinforcement was most often used in the classroom. Other more of effort or process, consistent with his view of a recent researchers confirm this finding (Beaman & democratic teacher. Encouragement focuses on Wheldall 2000, cited in Bear, 2010; Burnett and strength, avoids competition, and generates better- Mandel, 2010; Robins, 2012). Because this praise behaved students. Robins (2012) concurs, adding is not linked to a specific behaviour or completion that praising for effort rather than performance also of a task, these researchers agree with Brophy promotes risk-taking. that it is not effective in changing the behaviour

Weaving educational threads. Weaving educational practice. KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 14, ISSUE 2: 2013 35 or learning of an individual. If the recipient has implies judgement and may not align to the values no specific knowledge of why the comment was of the learner. Evaluative praise needs to take made, he or she is not empowered to make a place within a trust relationship. If it is intended change. The most appropriate use of global praise, to judge and control the behaviour of students, according to Robins (2012) is in “a teacher/class or is an attempt to create a friendly cooperative relationship where it is understood to be intended classroom atmosphere (‘I like the way Susie has for everyone, to create a corporate, feel-good cleaned up her desk’) it may cause students to moment” (p.135). Bear (2010) agrees, and adds feel manipulated (Brophy,1981; Robins, 2012). that a teacher who uses frequent global praise Kohn (1999, cited in Robins, 2012) agrees, saying avoids the use of criticism and punishment, thus that this manipulation is divisive and damaging enhancing a positive class climate. to pupil-teacher and peer relationships. When children are used as examples to the rest of the community “children are regularly reminded of Contingent Praise where the power lies” (p. 67). In a Montessori Contingent praise is given on observation of a environment, teachers are trained in the difference desired behaviour to reinforce or strengthen it, and between evaluative praise, which they say imposes is commonly used in New Zealand classrooms adult values on a child’s work, and descriptive (e.g. ‘Thank you for putting your hand up before praise, which scaffolds a child as they evaluate speaking Sam’). Webster-Stratton (2012) argues their own work in order to become independent that children with challenging behaviours often thinkers and learners (Robins, 2012). need higher doses of praise and attention than other students as they can undermine teaching Bear (2010) points out, however, that individuals efforts with their inattentiveness, disengagement are more likely to imitate the behaviours that are and oppositional behaviour. In fact, Brophy (1981) praised, thus this kind of praise can be an effective found that the highest praise proportions did go to behaviour management strategy. Webster-Stratton troublesome students who teachers were trying to (2012) also believes that what she calls ‘proximity motivate or reassure through positive treatment. praise’ serves as a redirection to the disengaged student. There is a wealth of research to show that contingent praise is a powerful reinforcer in a It does appear that the most effective specific reduction of a variety of behaviour problems at the praise focuses on effort and descriptive feedback individual level (Bear, 2010; Brophy, 1981; Partin (Brophy,1981; Bear, 2010; Webster-Stratton, 2012; et al., 2010; Webster-Stratton, 2012). However, the Robins, 2012). Yet although researchers agree that use of contingent praise is not universally favoured. specificity is necessary if praise is to be used as Robins (2012) contends that contingent praise may an effective reinforcer, Brophy (1981) found that create dependency, and leave the recipient feeling teachers are specific in only about five percent of controlled. She believes it encourages competition, praise comments. and diverts attention away from learning. Additionally, Kohn (1999, cited in Robins, 2012) Age-related Praise argues that using contingent praise to reinforce behaviour is ineffective, and that merely praising When praising, the age of the child should pro-social behaviour does nothing to address be considered. There appears to be a distinct the causes of antisocial behaviour. His suggested difference to how children at different ages view alternative is to praise pupil autonomy and active praise. Developmentally, young children are more learning. Pink (2011, cited in Robins, 2012) agrees, externally oriented. Younger students “may not saying that as the workplace calls increasingly for clearly perceive the distinctions between praise creative and conceptual skills, we need to move that is not contingent, specific and credible” away from a culture of compliance if students (Brophy,1981, p. 16). Younger students want to are to have an economically successful future. please adults and are more likely to accept praise However as Bear (2010) points out, contingent at face value (Webster-Stratton, 2012). For these praise is “a way to communicate important students, it constitutes guidance and positive behavioural expectations that are commonly feedback from an authority figure. valued in our society” (p. 103). As the child gets older, however, this desire to please recedes. Older students become Specific Praise and Evaluative Praise more sensitive to how praise and rewards are Specific praise includes very specific information administered, and begin to reflect and analyse or descriptive feedback to the child in order to adults’ evaluational and moralistic statements, prompt thinking for the next learning or behaviour rather than simply internalise them as they did steps. It differs from evaluative praise, which in the past (Bear, 2010; Brophy,1981). That may

36 KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 14, ISSUE 2: 2013 explain why some researchers advise ability- a significant positive effect on intrinsic motivation” feedback only for younger students and effort- (p. 653). They found that recipients viewed praise feedback for older students (Burnett & Mandel, differently from tangible rewards, in part because 2010). the verbal praise was unexpected. However, Deci et al., (1999; 2001) found that praise (but in particular rewards) may undermine intrinsic Credible Praise motivation if it was perceived to be controlling Brophy (1981) found praise was used often and when social comparisons were made. The amongst teachers with low expectations for effect of praising, therefore, was sensitive to the student learning and most likely directed towards “interpersonal context within which positive the lowest achievers. Slower students, he found, feedback is administered, and whether it is are often praised both publicly and privately, interpreted as informational, or controlling” (Deci with “teachers not so much trying to reinforce et al., 2001, p. 4). Brophy (2010) agrees, pointing specific behaviour as to build the teacher-student out that, generally, praise should be administered relationship” (Brophy, 1981, p. 18). And as Bear in private and rather than be controlling, be (2010, p. 113) points out “older students are appreciative and informative. Praise, he suggests, inclined to conclude that frequent praise for “preserves and supports intrinsic motivation by really simple tasks are given primarily to those avoiding incentive systems or explanations that who ‘need it’, that is, those lacking in ability lead students to infer that they engage only to or self-discipline”. When we give enthusiastic please you or to obtain rewards” (p. 148). praise to these students the praise becomes less credible (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs,1963; Robins, Interestingly, the study of Pierce, Cameron, Banko 2012; Rogers, 2009). This is especially true if it is and So (2003) challenges Brophy’s view. They not backed by, or is contradicted by non-verbal found that even rewards (or incentive systems) tied expressive behaviour. Webster-Stratton (2012, p. to meeting progressively demanding standards of 201) agrees, saying, “children easily pick up on performance enhance intrinsic motivation. praise that is insincere, and bask in praise that is genuine.” Breaux (2007) concurs “Be genuine. Many researchers would agree that praise only Students see insincerities coming from a mile rarely has a negative impact on intrinsic motivation away. Contrary to popular belief, they are not easy (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett & Little, 2004; Cameron, to fool. Never praise a job that is not well done just Banko & Pierce, 2003). Furthermore, it does because you want to shower students with praise. appear that praise is unlikely to affect intrinsic Find the good, the real good and compliment that, motivation if children are praised for their but don’t neglect to fix what needs fixing” (p. 14). persistent process and sustained efforts, rather than for their intelligence or ability (Dreikurs, cited in Cope, 2007; Dweck, 2007; Webster-Stratton, Praise vs Intrinsic Motivation 2012). Praising a child’s intelligence can be Researchers have found that behaviour reinforced harmful, explains Dweck (2007), as this implies a by the use of praise and rewards often “do not belief in an innate, fixed ability whereas more and generalise outside of the setting in which they more research in psychology supports the stance are systematically applied” (Bear, 2010, p. 108), that dedication and persistence can transform the which implies that praise does not build intrinsic basic capacity to learn. motivation. In tasks it appears that, although in the short term praise produces better performance, But is intrinsic motivation something we can once removed, performance noticeably declines affect? Deci et al., (1999) believe that intrinsic (Robins, 2012). So, are we undermining the child’s motivation is driven by personally directed and development of intrinsic motivation when praising? achieved goals and not controlled by external regulation. Constructivists would also argue that Praise to develop intrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation cannot be built by external self-discipline needs to be different than for agency – teachers and students can only create management and control. Bear (2010) argues we an appropriate environment in which a robust need to use praise more strategically to develop the sense of self can grow and develop. And it may social, emotional and behavioural competencies be that intrinsic motivation is developmental. of self-discipline so that in the absence of praise Self-evaluation and self-praise, explains Webster- students none-the-less act in a socially and morally Stratton (2012) “is a developmental process and responsible manner. even children from positive family environments vary in the age at which they develop this kind Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999), agree. Their of internal motivation and positive self-regard” meta-analysis of 128 experiments showed that (p.192). verbal rewards (specifically positive feedback) “had

Weaving educational threads. Weaving educational practice. KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 14, ISSUE 2: 2013 37 To praise or not? parents’ views of themselves as effective parents). Webster-Stratton (2012) also advises sharing praise Some children do not seem to respond to praise. with the students’ parents, as this positive home- Burnett & Mandel (2010) found that although the school communication can reinforce a particularly vast majority of students wanted to be praised, challenging behaviour. 17 percent indicated that they did not want to be praised at all, individually or publicly. This response could indicate a number of things. It Cultural Contexts may be that they don’t have the social skills or the In other cultural contexts, Robins (2012) contends teacher-student relationship is fragile (Webster- that Chinese parents do not use praise unless Stratton, 2012). It may also indicate an ill-informed there is an achievement to praise, and this is done assumption. in private. Thus Chinese children do not expect affirmation of their skills and abilities, are sturdy Praising the MĀori learner enough to accept accurate appraisal, and co-relate the perception of effort and ability. Japanese and

One common assumption is that M a ¯ori children Taiwanese parents also focused on effort as the do not like to be praised publicly and find it means to achievement. Thus, concludes Robins, embarrassing and shameful. However Butterworth contingent praise is of no cultural relevance to

¯ (2004), in her research on Maori interpretation many children being educated in our schools. and response to teacher praise, noted that we

should not stop praising M a ¯ori students even when they indicate they are ‘shamed’. She recognised Interpersonal effect of Praise that reaction as an emotional response to the It is significant to note that the effectiveness or unfamiliarity of praise. Butterworth pointed to the otherwise of praise is sensitive to context, situation, importance of the teacher speaking to and to relationships. Praise by a poor classroom M a ¯ori students about their responses to praise manager in danger of losing control may be before making that assumption. Another seen as a desperate attempt to “do something” assumption, that M a ¯ori parents do not praise (Brophy,1981, p. 27). Similar teacher praise their children for the fear they may be seen as statements “can be perceived as reinforcing by ‘whakahihi’ (arrogant) was also contradicted by her certain students in certain situations, but perceived findings that they were indeed praised verbally and as manipulation or condescension by other non-verbally within the confines of their students in certain situations” (Bear, 2010, p. wh a ¯nau (extended family) where their praise 108); As Brophy (2010) puts it “identical teacher would not be misinterpreted. Butterworth (2004) statements made under the same circumstances found that M a ¯ori students referenced praise to their and with the same intent can be experienced very world outside of the classroom, and that effective differently and may have very different effects in praise needed to be in a combined cultural/ different individuals” (p. 23). Praising is not an educational frame. Students sought the meaning exact science. It will vary in effectiveness from of praise from their wider context, influenced by situation to situation, and teachers should evaluate te hinengaro (the M a ¯ori way of thinking where the appropriateness within the unique context thoughts and feelings interact). The concept of and also consider the relationship dynamic before wh a ¯nau (embodying the concept of praising. whanaungatanga) (relationships) operating within the classroom studied, changed the students Concluding Remarks response to praise from shamed (whakama) to a more positive response, seen by their body So … how should we praise? It largely depends on language. The values of whanaungatanga (respect, the purpose. Global praise can serve a function caring, reciprocal, based on hui) and manaakitanga of creating a positive class culture. But if you are (encourage, support, accept) influenced the looking to effect learning and behaviour, most children’s perceptions of themselves as learners researchers agree that praise should be delivered

and as M a ¯ori. The ongoing interaction between contingently, be specific, credible, and provide the emotional and cognitive domains of these feedback that is task-related. The effects of children lead to continuous interpretation and re- praise can depend on the age of the child, and is interpretation of praise and positive feedback. sensitive to contexts, situation and relationships. Although there may be cultural differences in the Butterworth (2004) concluded that isolating way children respond to praise, it is important praise to the classroom could engender a negative not to make assumptions about this. It is better to response, and the inclusion of parents as praisers praise for effort rather than ability or performance. of their children further enhanced the children’s Evaluative or judgemental praise should be limited belief in themselves as effective learners (and the in order that children do not feel controlled or

38 KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 14, ISSUE 2: 2013 manipulated, and that intrinsic motivation is not Dweck, C. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. affected. As teachers, we need to evaluate our use In K. Ryan & J. M. Cooper (Eds.), Kaleidoscope: of praise to ensure that the majority of it empowers Contemporary and classic readings in education, children to reflect, to move to the next learning or (13th ed.), (pp. 57-64). Belmont, USA: Cengage behaviour step, to become risk-takers, to grow self- Learning. efficacy, and become autonomous learners. Partin, T.C.M., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M., Oliver., R. M., & Webby, J. H. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to References promote appropriate student behaviour. Retrieved Akin-Little, A. K., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & from http://specialistteaching.net.nz Little, S. C. (2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in Pierce, W., Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & So, the classroom: Bribery or best practice? School S. (2003). Positive effects of rewards and Psychology Review, 33(3), 344-362. performance standards on intrinsic motivation. Bear, G. (2010). School discipline and self-discipline. The Psychological Record, 53(4), 561-579. New York, USA: The Guilford Press. Robins, G. (2012). Praise, motivation and the child. Breaux, E. (2007). How to reach and teach all New York, USA: Routledge. students. New York, US.A: Eye on Education. Rogers, B. (2009). Principles and practices that enable Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional us to make a difference with individual children analysis. In Review of Educational Research 1981 and classroom groups. In B. Rogers (Ed.), How to 51:5. Retrieved from http://rer.aera.net manage children’s challenging behaviour (2nd ed.), (pp. 114-135). London: Sage Publications Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd Ltd. ed.). New York, New York: Routledge. Webster-Stratton, C. (2012). Incredible teachers: Burnett., P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and Nurturing children’s social, emotional and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers’ academic competence. Seattle, Washington, USA: and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Incredible Years. Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 145-154. AUTHOR PROFILE

Butterworth, V. (2004). Ma ¯ori student interpretation and response to teacher praise in the classroom; What influences this? Unpublished Master of Miriam Ferguson Educational Psychology Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North. New Zealand. Cameron, J., Banko, K., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. The myth continues. Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44. Cope, B. (2007). How to plan for behaviour development and classroom management: Miriam Ferguson is a training RTLB in Cluster 18, Maximising student engagement. New South and this literature review was written as part of the Wales, Australia: Pearson Education. Learning and Behaviour paper requirement. She was Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A a teacher for many years in New Zealand primary meta-analytic review of experiments examining schools before teaching in a Special Education the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic Needs (SEN) Department in a secondary school motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627- in Bromley, London, igniting an interest in special 668. Doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 education. Returning to New Zealand she became a supplementary learning support teacher while Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). completing a DipSpEd followed by a Masters of Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in Education degree at Waikato University. education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27. doi: Miriam is interested in all things educational, in 10.3102/00346543071001001 particular, the critical application of research to practice.sion. Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary. reference.com/browse/praise?s=t Email Dinkmeyer, D., & Dreikurs, R. (1963). Encouraging [email protected] children to learn. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Weaving educational threads. Weaving educational practice. KAIRARANGA – VOLUME 14, ISSUE 2: 2013 39