Friday 2 October 2020

Encouragement versus Praise: Effects on children's motivation, behaviour and development

Encouragement versus praise: Effects on children’s behaviour, motivation and development,  

 Author: Natalie R. Garmson, Edith Cowan University, 3rd Year BA Psychology (major: SocSci)




Praise and encouragement are both methods of positive feedback adults give to children; however adults give praise to children in different ways, which have the potential to both support and undermine children’s behaviour and development. Whilst encouragement is considered fundamental for children’s learning, growth and development, praise, on the other hand is complex because there are different types of praise, whose effectiveness varies according to the context in which it was given, the quality of its use and the interpretation of the child (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Larrivee, 2002; Watts & Pietrzak, 2000).
This essay will discuss the effectiveness of encouragement and praise, the differences and the consequences of both as well as the underlying theories. The effects on children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-esteem and performance are explored in detail as are the effects of teacher praise and encouragement in the classroom.  The language of how to encourage children efficiently will be highlighted and the use of encouragement in scaffolding will be discussed. It will be argued that encouragement is superior to praise because of the greater positive outcomes on children’s behaviour and development and subsequent positive long term consequences.
Encouragement is a method of positive feedback that focuses on effort, improvement and what the child is doing rather than the outcome (Burnett, 2002; Larrivee, 2002; Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; McCormack, 2000). Encouragement underpins the child rearing approach based on Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs (McCormack, 2000) which is deeply rooted in individual psychology. Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs (2000) highlighted the Adlerian principle emphasizing that children’s behaviour has purpose, meaning and is goal oriented, and it is through their behaviour that children learn to express goals, attitudes and expectations. Other Adlerian principles stated by Pryor and Tollerud (1999) and White, Flynt and Draper (1997) include that children interact with the social environment through experimentation, develop positive adult-child relationships and are in control of their choices, with the wrong choice leading to inappropriate behaviour. Encouragement is the logical consequence which follows children’s inappropriate behaviour. Encouragement assists children’s motivation to change their misbehaviour which is often the result of discouragement (Pryor & Tollerud, 1999). Adler believed that although children are active participants of their development, their development is shaped by hereditary and environmental forces; for example, the social environment is important because it is where children learn skills such as co-operation (De Robertis, 2011).
Encouragement focuses on children’s assets and strengths, promotes self-confidence and self-esteem, fosters internal motivation, teaches self-improvement and is focused on future behaviour (McCormack, 2000). It also teaches children about responsibility, self-evaluation, perseverance, acceptance of mistakes and failures and an appreciation of success (Larrivee, 2002). To foster a child’s worthiness and provide encouragement, adults can use effective communication skills such as active listening, respect the child for who they are, show confidence in their abilities, provide opportunities for success, focus on the strengths of the child, show and say “I love you”, spend quality time with your child and help your child to accept and overcome mistakes and failures (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; McCormack, 2000; Watts & Pietrzak, 2000). Parents and teachers can help develop children’s mastery of skills and competence by the use of scaffolding. The technique of scaffolding is used frequently within the zone of proximal development (Edwards, 2002). Adults use scaffolding by asking questions to assist children with their development and understanding of the task, creating an environment optimal for learning and competency (Neitzel & Stright, 2003).
The study by Neitzel and Stright (2003) provides evidence to support Edwards (2002), concluding that there was a positive association between mothers who use scaffolding and children’s subsequent academic competence. Encouragement was also found to reduce disruptive classroom behaviour. Similar results have been found by Yelland and Masters’ (2007) review of the use of scaffolding in learning and teaching processes. Teachers assisted students with problem solving by including mental strategies to help students develop a greater understanding of the task. Scaffolding by teachers in the classroom to solve tasks, including the use of encouragement, was more likely to produce students with a good understanding of mental strategies than without scaffolding (Yelland & Masters, 2007). In addition, parental encouragement resulting from a reaction to students’ grades was positively associated with intrinsic motivation and a higher academic performance. Children who received encouragement preferred to attempt challenging tasks and were interested in learning and problem solving (Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). Therefore, encouragement for children is an important method of feedback that assists with improvement of cognitive skill in the classroom; however, another method used by adults to give positive feedback is praise.
Praise, in contrast to encouragement, is a method of positive judgement that focuses on the outcomes, performances or attributes of the child (Kanouse, Gumpert & Canavan-Gumpert, 1981, p. 98 as cited in Henderlong & Lepper, 2002) as well as the child’s worth and approval-seeking behaviour (Burnett, 2002). Theories that are associated with praise include attribution theory and self-perception theory (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). The attribution theory is the process by which individuals explain the causes of their behaviour or accomplishments subsequently guiding their behaviour. Children base their motivational behaviour on factors such as lack of effort or lack of ability. The self-perception theory hypothesizes that our internal states are managed by our own behaviour together with environmental influences such as praise. For example, external influences such as rewards for children result in children being extrinsically motivated whereas the absences of external influences are more likely to result in children participating in a task because it is personally rewarding, therefore are intrinsically or internally motivated (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
Praise focuses on the outcome, that is, it is given after the task is completed and is usually an expression of approval, for example, “That’s great” or “Good job”. Praise is associated with external motivation, by offering rewards, and competitiveness, with children more likely to compare performances with each other than themselves, consequently reducing co-operation between children (McCormack, 2000). Praise has negative consequences, such as the capacity to discourage children from completing tasks, focuses on the expectation that children rely on praise, is more likely to be associated with conformity and has the ability to affect self-esteem and self-discipline. Praise is more likely to foster children’s fear of failure and disapproval from adults of children, with children often seeking other’s evaluations for their accomplishments (Larrivee, 2002). Thorkildsen, Nolen and Fournier (1994) interviewed seven to twelve year olds about the fairness of different methods for influencing motivation to learn, using encouragement, rewards or effort based strategies. They found that most children agreed praise for good performance is unfair because it caused competition and fear of failure amongst those children who did not perform as good. Praise was viewed as short term only, not assisting with self-improvement.
Praise can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the child’s background, personality and culture (Larrivee, 2002). Praise also varies depending on what the adult focuses on.  For instance, ability or person praise is based on children’s ability such as intelligence, for example, “You’re so clever” or “You must be smart at maths”. Effort or process praise is based on children’s effort such as hard work “I see you put in a lot of hard work to get that result”. Dweck (2007) reports that praising intelligence can have a short term positive effect however this type of praise is more likely to be detrimental in the long term. In comparison, praise for effort, perseverance, strategies or improvement has potential to promote motivation, for example “That seemed like a hard assignment, but I liked the way you stuck with it and finished it” or “I like how you worked out different ways to solve the math problem” (Dweck, 2007).    
 Kamins and Dweck (1999) examined the implications of person praise versus process praise on self-worth and coping mechanisms.  They found that person praise, based on children’s behaviour or performance was more likely to foster learned helplessness than compared to process praise, based on children’s effort or strategy. Process praise was found to improve children’s mastery oriented response after a setback or failure, whereas person praise focused on fixed traits such as intelligence or personality which is performance based (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Similarly, Burnett (2001) (as cited in Burnett, 2002) investigated primary school students’ preferences for praise in the classroom and found that almost all students preferred praise for effort over praise for ability, with private praise favoured over public praise, mainly due to feelings of embarrassment but also being made a target and put in the spotlight in front of other students.
Mueller and Dweck (1998) investigated how different types of praise negatively affect student’s motivation and performance in fifth grade at school, which further supports studies by Kamins and Dweck (1999) and Burnett (2002). Following success on a task, those students praised for intelligence or ability were performance oriented whereas those students praised for their effort or hard work were mastery oriented, focussing on strategies to enhance their learning. Students believed that intelligence was a fixed trait, measured by their performance level, whereas effort and hard work had the ability to change, depending on their motivation and knowledge of the subject. The findings concluded that praise for intelligence had more adverse consequences on student’s achievement and motivation in comparison to praise for effort (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In addition, this is explained by Dweck (2007) on the difference between fixed mindset versus growth mindset.
Dweck (2007) explains that praise is associated with how students think about their intelligence, that is, whether they have a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. Those students with a fixed approach believe their intelligence is fixed and unable to change, whereas students with a growth mindset believe that intelligence is something that can change with effort and learning. Individuals who possess a growth mindset are more likely to attempt tasks that are challenging and will persevere in order to complete it, while individuals who reduce their effort in order to avoid setbacks or possess a fear of failure and avoid challenging tasks demonstrate a fixed mindset. Other research on ability praise, effort praise and intrinsic motivation (Koestner, Zuckerman & Koestner, 1987, as cited in Henderlong & Lepper, 2002) support Dweck’s (2007) analysis of mindset. The findings indicated that ability praise led to an increase in engagement on tasks than did effort praise, however, when students were required to persevere on a task, or experienced setback or failure, they were more likely to give up.
At what age then does praise start to affect children’s learning, development and motivational behaviour? A study by Gunderson, Gripshover, Romero, Dweck, Goldin-Meadow and Levine (2013) investigated the use of different types of praise on one to three year olds in the home environment and the impact this had on motivation five years later. They found that variations in parental praise, particularly process praise, predicted children’s motivational behaviour at ages seven and eight years and that parental praise can influence children’s development from as early as toddlerhood. Furthermore, according to Brummelman, Thomaes, de Castro, Overbeek and Bushman (2014), children who have low self-esteem are more likely to avoid challenging tasks because they have learnt that certain types of praise, such as inflated praise, produces higher expectations of themselves for future performances. Children with low self-esteem are more likely to believe they lack the ability to attempt challenging tasks and consequently fear failing on tasks. Inflated praise uses additional words to give a very positive evaluation, for example, “You drew an incredibly beautiful drawing” or “You kicked the soccer ball extremely well” and is more likely to be used by parent’s wanting to increase children’s self-esteem. Compared to non-inflated praise, inflated praise was found to be more detrimental to children’s learning, as well as more likely to be damaging during mid to late childhood when children become more realistic about their feedback as they compare performances with their peers.
Given that children’s motivational behaviour can be affected as early as the toddler years, what effects do influences on children’s behaviour, such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, have within the classroom, and can praise be an effective motivational strategy?  Firstly, for praise to be effective, it must be authentic and spontaneous, and must be a genuine reaction to children’s achievements (Brummelman, Thomaes, de Castro, Overbeek & Bushman, 2014; Larrivee, 2002). Larrivee (2002) found that younger children, for example, in primary school, are more likely to be extrinsically motivated, whereas older children, for example, in secondary school, tend to be intrinsically motivated. Teachers can encourage students to be intrinsically motivated through self-evaluation of their own achievements and performances using their personal standards and values.
Barker and Graham’s (1987) study compared praise with neutral feedback to children aged four to twelve years following the successful completion of a task. Compared to neutral feedback, those children who were praised were higher in effort (Barker & Graham, 1987) suggesting that praise which is associated with children’s internal drive such as persistence and effort can have a positive effect on children’s behaviour and learning and thus have the potential to be an effective motivational strategy. However, praise also has the potential to undermine intrinsic motivation by adversely affecting children’s performance and confidence to task risks. Teachers or parents who give children praise by offering rewards or incentives for good behaviour or successfully completing tasks are more likely to decrease children’s engagement in a task, therefore reducing children’s intrinsically motivated behaviour (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). It is important to note as well that the type of praise given and its influence on children’s motivation may vary depending on the children’s cultural background. Most studies on praise use Western countries where children are primarily from individualistic cultural backgrounds, whereas in collectivist cultures such as Asian countries, achievement outcomes focus more on children’s effort than ability. Praise for effort it is more effective in collectivist cultures than compared to individualistic cultures, however praise is used less often in Asian cultures. Collectivist cultures place importance on both efforts involved and outcome of the task, thus children in Asian cultures are more likely to be internally motivated. For these reasons, teachers should be mindful of the fact that different cultures use praise for children’s motivation in various ways and for different reasons (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
Further effects of teacher’s praise in the classroom as noted by Larrivee (2002) include the negative effects that praise may have on students. These include the potential for students to increase learned helplessness, a negative effect on learning ability, discourages creativity; students may also demand or depend on praise especially if it is given inappropriately, students fear of living up to expectations, discourages democratic values and discourages freedom of expression. Therefore, our society values democracy and a democratic classroom is one that supports self-evaluation, self-reflection and fosters acceptance and respect, thus supporting Adlerian principles which emphasise the uniqueness of the individual, the importance of the self and that children’s development forms the foundation of interactions within the social environment (DeRobertis, 2011).
In conclusion, encouragement focuses on the child as an individual, his or her creativity and development which occurs within the social environment. Encouragement focuses on the child’s development as opposed praise which is focused on the outcome of the task or behaviour. Encouragement allows risk taking, stimulates intrinsic motivation, provides self-determination and fosters competence through mastery-oriented behaviour, whereas praise can be harmful for children’s behaviour, learning and development particularly if it is inauthentic. Praise can influence children’s motivational behaviour depending on whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, whereas encouragement is primarily intrinsic. Encouragement supports children’s self-esteem compared to praise which can be detrimental to self-esteem. Inflated praise and person praise produce greater negative long term consequences than any other form of praise as well as compared to encouragement. Finally, encouragement can be likened to the foundations of a house; encouragement provides nurture and support enabling the child’s self-esteem, motivation, learning and development to thrive. Encouragement is therefore essential for a child’s wellbeing, mental health and healthy development. Praise can be likened to the roof over the house. There are many types or models, depending on the type of house that exists will therefore influence the outcome. The incorrect roof type can weaken the house and its foundations, much like the type of praise and the context in which it is given.


References
Barker, G. P., & Graham, S. (1987). Developmental study of praise and blame as attributional cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 66-66.
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., de Castro, B. O., Overbeek, G., Bushman, B. J. (2014). “Thats not just beautiful- that’s incredibly beautiful!”: The adverse impact of inflated praise on children with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25(3), 728-735. doi:10.1177/0956797613514251
Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 5-16. doi: 10.1080/01443410120101215
DeRobertis, E. M. (2011). Deriving a third force approach to child development from the works of Alfred Adler. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(4), 492-515. doi: 10.1177/0022167810386960
Dinkmeyer, D., & Dreikurs, R. (2000). Encouraging Children to Learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34-39.
Edwards, M. E. (2002). Attachment, mastery, and interdependence: A model of parenting processes. Family Process, 41(3), 389-404.
Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64(5), 1461-1474.
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow. S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3- year olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526-1541. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12064
Henderlong, J. & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774-795. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.774
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835-847.
Larrivee, B. (2002). The potential perils of praise in a democratic interactive classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 77-88. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2002.10463091
McCormack, P. M. (2000). Encouragement versus praise. Today’s Catholic Teacher, 33(6), 74-75. Retrieved from http://www.parentteachersupport.org/documents/6-Encouragement.pdf
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
Neitzel, C., & Stright, A. D. (2003). Mothers’ scaffolding of children’s problem solving: Establishing a foundation of academic self-regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 147-159. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.1.147
Pryor, D. B., & Tollerud, T. R. (1999). Applications of Adlerian principles in school settings. Professional School Counselling, 2(4), 299-304.
Thorkildsen, T. A., Nolen, S. B., & Fournier, J. (1994). What is fair? Children’s critiques of practices that influence motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 475-486.
Watts, R. E., & Pietrzak, D. (2000). Adlerian “Encouragement” and the therapeutic process of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 442-447.
White, J., Flynt, M., & Draper, K. Kinder Therapy: Teachers as therapeutic agents. International Journal of Play Therapy, 6(2), 33-49.

Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers& Education, 48, 362-382. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for leaving a comment on the Idibidi Kids BLOG :)

Books Ive Read...

  • Frederick Leboyer: Loving Hands, The Traditional Art of Baby Massage
  • Kerstin Uvnas Moberg: The Oxytocin Factor
  • Tiffany Field: Touch
  • Vimala McClure: Infant Massage, A Handbook for Loving Parents