Contact Us | Print Page | Sign In | Register
Curriculum, teaching and support
Blog Home All Blogs
Guidance, ideas and examples to support schools in developing their curriculum, pedagogy, enrichment and support for more able learners, within a whole-school context of cognitively challenging learning for all. Includes ideas to support curriculum development, and practical examples, resources and ideas to try in the classroom. Popular topics include: curriculum development, enrichment, independent learning, questioning, oracy, resilience, aspirations, assessment, feedback, metacognition, and critical thinking.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: pedagogy  questioning  enrichment  research  oracy  independent learning  curriculum  free resources  KS3  aspirations  cognitive challenge  KS4  assessment  language  literacy  feedback  resilience  critical thinking  maths  metacognition  collaboration  confidence  English  creativity  wellbeing  lockdown  vocabulary  access  mindset  CPD 

The problem with praise

Posted By Richard Bailey, 03 December 2019

In this article, originally published on the Psychology Today website, NACE patron Richard Bailey explores the problem(s) with praise…

There have been a number of reports and research articles trying to help teachers distinguish between effective and ineffective practices. One useful example comes from the University of Durham, when a team led by Professor Robert Coe reviewed a wide range of literature to find out what works, and what probably does not, in the Sutton Trust report What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research (2014).

Among the report’s examples of teaching techniques whose efficacy is not supported by research evidence was the widely discredited idea of "learning styles," as well as commonly used practices like "ability grouping" and "discovery learning." Even more surprising for many readers, perhaps, was the inclusion of "Use praise lavishly" in the list of questionable strategies. This is likely to be surprising because praise for students is seen as inherently affirming and beneficial by many people and is a core element of a positive philosophy of teaching, coaching, and parenting. In a similar way, criticism is now frequently condemned for being negative and harmful.

There are school programs and sports organisations based explicitly on the dual premises of plenty of praise and minimal criticism. And the rationale for this is usually that praise bolsters self-esteem and criticism harms it. In effect, this is the "gas gauge" theory of self-esteem, in which praise fills up the tank with good feelings and social approval, and criticism drains it.

Creating positive learning experiences

How can one not applaud the movement towards more positive approaches to education and sports? Especially for young people, these settings should be joyous, exciting experiences, and we know from vast amounts of research evidence from the United States and elsewhere that this is not always the case (link) (link).

We know, for example, that bullying, harassment and abuse still hide in dark corners, and that far too many parents, coaches, and teachers confuse infant needs with adult wants and infant games with professional competitions. We also know that such behaviours drive children away from engagement in and enjoyment of these pursuits because young people, if not all adults, know that learning, playing sports, and taking part in other activities are supposed to be fun.

Consider sports specifically for a moment. Research from the United States suggests that sports participation drops by 30% each year after age 10. According to a report from the National Alliance for Youth Sports, over 70% of children drop out of organised sports by age 13.

Numerous studies report that many children are put off participating in sports by an over-emphasis on winning and that this effect is especially strong among girls. Children are too often presented with a narrow and uninspiring range of opportunities, and while many love team games and athletic events, others find these traditional forms of physical activity irrelevant, boring, or upsetting.

Remember: this pattern of children dropping out from sports is happening as the health and happiness of young people are being compromised by unprecedented levels of physical inactivity. With activity levels low, and predicted to go even lower, we cannot afford to turn children off sports, and the movement toward more positive athletic experiences is undoubtedly a movement in the right direction.

There is a danger, though, in embracing praise as wholeheartedly and unconditionally as some parents, coaches, and teachers seem to have done.

When praise goes wrong…

Praise for students may be seen as affirming and positive, but a number of studies suggest that the wrong kinds of praise can be very harmful to learning. Psychologist Carol Dweck has carried out some of the most valuable research in this regard. In one study from 1998, fifth-graders were asked to solve a set of moderately difficult mathematical problems and were given praise that focused either on their ability ("You did really well; you're so clever") or on their hard work ("You did really well; you must have tried really hard”). The children were then asked to complete a set of more difficult challenges and were led to believe they had been unsuccessful. The researchers found that the children who had been given effort-based praise were more likely to show willingness to work out new approaches. They also showed more resilience and tended to attribute failure to lack of effort, not lack of ability. The children who had been praised for their intelligence tended to choose tasks that confirmed what they already knew, displayed less resilience when problems got harder, and worried more about failure.

What many might consider a common-sense approach – praising the child for being smart, clever, or "a natural" – turned out to be an ineffective strategy. The initial thrill of a compliment soon gave way to a drop in self-esteem, motivation, and overall performance. And this was the result of just one sentence of praise.

Some researchers have argued that praise that is intended to be encouraging and affirming of low-attaining students actually conveys a message of low expectations. In fact, children whose failure was responded to with sympathy were more likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability than those who were presented with anger. They claim:

“Praise for successful performance on an easy task can be interpreted by a student as evidence that the teacher has a low perception of his or her ability. As a consequence, it can actually lower rather than enhance self-confidence. Criticism following poor performance can, under some circumstances, be interpreted as an indication of the teacher's high perception of the student's ability.”

So, at the least, the perception that praise is good for children and criticism is bad needs a serious rethink: praise can hinder rather than help development and learning if given inappropriately. Criticism offered cautiously and wisely can be empowering.

Well-chosen criticism over poorly judged praise

These findings would seem to call for a reconsideration of a very widely held belief among teachers and coaches that they should avoid making negative or critical comments, and that if they must do so, then they should counter-balance a single criticism with three, four, or even five pieces of praise. This assumption is clearly based on the "gas gauge" model of self-esteem described earlier, viewing any negative comment as necessarily damaging, and requiring positive comments to be heaped around it in order to offset the harm.

I am unaware of any convincing evidence that criticism or negative feedback necessarily causes any harm to children's self-esteem. Of course, abusive comments and personal insults may well do so, but these are obviously inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours. Well-chosen criticism, delivered in an environment of high expectations and unconditional support, can inspire learning and development, whilst poorly judged praise can do more harm than good. Even relatively young children can tell the difference between constructive and destructive criticism, and it is a serious and unhelpful error to conflate the two.

We actually know quite a lot about effective feedback, and that knowledge is summarised nicely by the educational researcher John Hattie: "To be effective, feedback needs to be clear, purposeful, meaningful, and compatible with students’ prior knowledge, and to provide logical connections.”

I suggest that it would be extremely difficult to deliver feedback that is clear, purposeful, etc. in the context of voluminous praise. Eventually, the parent, teacher, or coach simply ends up making vague, meaningless or tenuous platitudes. And this can cause more damage to the learner-teacher relationship than criticism.

Build confidence by being present

The psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz describes a conversation he had with a school teacher named Charlotte Stiglitz – the mother of the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

"I don't praise a small child for doing what they ought to be able to do," she said. "I praise them when they do something really difficult – like sharing a toy or showing patience. I also think it is important to say ‘thank you’, … but I wouldn't praise a child who is playing or reading.”

Grosz watched as a four-year-old Stiglitz showed her a picture he had been drawing. She did not do what many would have done (including me when I taught this age group) and immediately praise such a lovely drawing. Instead, she had an unhurried conversation with the child about his picture. “She observed, she listened. She was present,” Grosz noted.

I think Stephen Grosz’s conclusion from this seemingly everyday event is correct and important: being present for children builds their confidence by demonstrating that they are listened to. Being present avoids an inherent risk associated with excessive praise, as with any type of reward, that the praise becomes an end in itself and the activity is merely a means to that end. When that happens, learning, achievement, and the love of learning are compromised. 

Praise is like sugar. Used too liberally or in an inappropriate way, it spoils. But used carefully and sparingly, it can be a wonderful thing!

This article previously appeared in Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smart-moves). 
Copyright Richard Bailey

Tags:  confidence  feedback  mindset  motivation  myths and misconceptions  research  resilience  wellbeing 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

Oxbridge admissions interviews: “4 Cs” for success

Posted By Matthew Williams, 15 April 2019
Updated: 07 August 2019
What are Oxbridge admissions tutors really trying to assess during the famously gruelling interview process? Dr Matt Williams, Access Fellow at Jesus College Oxford, shares “four Cs” used to gauge candidates’ suitability for a much sought-after place.

Oxbridge interviews have taken on near-mythic status as painful reckonings. The way they are sometimes described, a trial by ordeal sounds more appealing.

I used to think as much, before I became an interviewer at Oxford. I’ve worked on politics admissions for several colleges for years now. And “work” truly is the verb here. Admissions tutors and officers at Oxford and Cambridge work very hard over months to ensure they choose the best applicants, and do so fairly. It’s honestly heartening to see how committed tutors are.

It is not even remotely in our interests to put candidates under emotional strain. So a mythic sense of interviews as tests of psychological resilience is nonsense. At Oxford and Cambridge we invite prospective students to come and stay in our colleges, eat in our dining halls and chat with our students and staff. As you’d hope from any professional job interview, the process is friendly, transparent and focused on encouraging the best performances from candidates. Below I’ve outlined a few concrete ideas as to what we are looking for, and how students can prepare.

In the interviews we tend to scribble down notes as the candidate is talking. But what exactly are we recording? What makes for good, mediocre and bad performances at interview? I record lots of data during interviews, which can be collated under four Cs. These help us gauge, accurately, a candidate’s academic ability and potential. This ultimately, is all we are testing at interview…

1. Communication

Candidates do not need to be self-confident and comfortable in expressing their ideas. Our successful candidates are mostly just normal people, with the sort of self-effacing humility you’d expect from a randomly selected stranger. As such, candidates should not be put off by cock-of-the-walk types who seem instantly at ease in our ancient surroundings.

We are not judging candidates by their ease of manner, but we do judge candidates by their ability to communicate. Meaning that candidates need to be able and willing to share their thinking as clearly as possible. Even if a candidate nervously glances at the floor and speaks softly, provided they answer our questions and help us understand their views they will be performing well.

More specifically, we are seeking answers to the questions we pose. There may not be a single answer, but it is not terribly helpful if students try to wriggle out of responding to us. As an example, the following question doesn’t have one correct (or even any correct) response:

“Can animals be said to have rights?”

Candidates need to avoid the temptation of saying either that the question is unanswerable, or sitting on the fence. Such responses are, to be blunt, intellectually lazy. We commonly have candidates “challenging the terms of the question” and thereby not answering the question at all. That is easy. Anyone can do that. Far harder is sticking your neck out and offering a solution, however tentative, to a very complex puzzle.

That said, we’re not expecting candidates to alight on their preferred solution immediately. So candidates should “show their working” and talk through their ideas as they coalesce into a solution. They can challenge aspects of the question and enquire about the wording. It may take the whole interview to come up with an answer, but at least an answer of sorts is being proposed.

2. Critical thinking

The question as to whether animals have rights is contestable. We will challenge any answer a candidate offers to see how they can defend their position. We are not expecting the candidate to drop their resolve and agree with us, but nor should they cohere rigidly to their position if it is clearly flawed. The important point is that candidates are open-minded to the possibility of other, perhaps better, solutions to the puzzle at hand, and a willingness to critique their own thinking.

Often candidates feel that they have done badly when they face critical questioning. Far from it. This is normal and reflects the fact that they have answered the question and given us (the interviewers) something to explore further.

3 and 4. Coherence and Creativity in argumentation

When posing critical questions we may encourage the candidate to identify incoherences in their case. Let’s say they argue that dogs have rights, but racing hounds do not. This could be a category error and we might ask whether they meant to say that all dogs except racing hounds have rights, or if they have made a critical misstep in the case.

Again, having a point of incoherence identified is not a bad sign. What matters is how the candidate responds. If they fail to recognise or resolve a true incoherence, that could suggest an inability to self-critically evaluate an argument.

Creativity, meanwhile, is something of an X-factor. We’re not expecting utterly original thinking in response to our intractable intellectual puzzles. But we do appreciate a willingness not to simply parrot ideas from A-level, or from the press. We appreciate a nascent (but not fully formed) capacity in a candidate to stand on their own intellectual feet.

This is where candidates can (but don’t have to) draw on wider reading or other academic experiences they have had. A lot of candidates are keen to show off what they know, but we’re testing how they think. So, we don’t want long quotes from highfalutin sources, per se; we want the candidates to come up with their own ideas, even if those ideas are half-formed and tentatively expressed.

The bottom line is that we are not looking for perfection, or else there would be little point in seeking to educate the candidates. We’re looking for potential, and it is often raw potential. Therefore willingness, motivation and enthusiasm all play a big part in the four Cs as well.

Tags:  access  aspirations  CEIAG  creativity  critical thinking  higher education  myths and misconceptions  Oxbridge  Oxford 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

5 things we forget at their peril

Posted By Nicola Morgan, 31 January 2018
Updated: 20 August 2019
Think you understand what makes young people tick? Think again. Award-winning author and expert on teenage brains Nicola Morgan shares five factors which are often overlooked, but which hold the key to effectively supporting today’s young learners.

I’m delighted to be giving the keynote speech at this year’s NACE Cymru Conference, in Cardiff on 28 June. I’ve been asked to write a blog post introducing some of my ideas. I’ve thought of “five things we forget at their peril” – ideas which underpin my philosophy and which will, I hope, resonate both with those of you who can’t come to the conference and those I’ll be talking to on the day. I will explain everything in detail in my speech, with fascinating science!

1. Young people know a lot about a lot... and very little about a lot

Today’s teenagers know far more than I did about the “big wide world”. Thanks largely to the internet, social media and globalisation, they’ve interacted with people from different backgrounds and cultures, been exposed to wide-ranging ideas, breathed diversity, celebrated difference. They are often streetwise, worldly wise and knowledgeable in ways I couldn’t have imagined.

But we should not overestimate their knowledge of basic psychology, biology and life skills. They often don’t know that headaches and stomach aches can be a symptom of stress or that sleep and calories are necessary for learning and brain function. They don’t always know about metacognition or growth mindsets and far too often have too much done for them by their parents.

2. Young people do not have our life experience – they do not know that “this too shall pass”

How young people’s bodies and brains react to stress is almost identical to our own: they feel the same; they are the same; prick them and they bleed, stress them and their bodies flood with alerting chemicals. But they arrive at these pressures new. They do not know, because they have not experienced, that how they feel about something today is not how they will feel tomorrow or next week or next month.

We need to tell them, often – just as we remind our own friends in pain or turmoil – that everything changes, passes, morphs into something manageable and often something forgettable. In my keynote, I’ll talk about the brain difference that underpins this, but let me just say now that they are in the moment because the moment is big and new and dramatic and all-consuming. They are less able to look ahead and to rationalise. But they will learn to do so faster if they have the chance to try and if they are guided.

3. Failure is the greatest risk our students face, and the lucky ones will fail soon

We want our young people to be resilient, to cope with setbacks. Resilience grows from experiencing difficulty and being supported, with empathy and metacognition, to pick ourselves up and try again. To get back in the saddle.

Too many parents and schools raise the stakes until failure is The Worst Possible Thing. But failure only means that you aimed high enough. Real success comes from being ambitious, understanding “what went wrong” and keeping on trying, but trying better. Too many of our brightest children don’t experience failure at school and are failure-phobic, coming to a crashing fall later. Ditto their parents, who helicopter in to prevent the failure.

4. Stress is life-saving and dangerous, performance-enhancing and performance-wrecking

Don’t be afraid of stress: it enhances your life and gives you the physical and mental state for super-performance. The key is to know your triggers and symptoms and learn how to feel stress when you need it and not when you don’t. My course Stress Well for Schools teaches all this in detail.

5. Digital natives do not have specially evolved brains

They were born with the same brains as the rest of us. They’ve spent a lot of time on screens so they have learned those skills. The more time we spend doing something the better we are at it. It’s very simple: use it and don’t lose it. There are skills you have that “digital natives” don’t have but which they could learn, too. They’re not special.

“But, surely, they’re better at multi-tasking? They do it so much, no?” Ah, no. The opposite. In my keynote, I’ll explain exactly why and exactly what they are better at… Trust me: the science on this is fascinating, revealing and important. And relevant to us all.

Tags:  adolescence  mindset  myths and misconceptions  neuroscience  research  resilience  technology 

PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 2 of 2
1  |  2