Praise

Praise is often used to comfort and support, is ever-present in many classrooms, and is welcomed and expected by students (Hattie, 2012).

It is important to note that praise is not necessarily a good thing (Wiliam, 2011). Although praise is a convenient way to reward students, carefully consider the consequences of telling them they’re smart (or that they have other innate abilities). Feedback should seek focus students on helping them develop a growth mindset by addressing their performance instead of their ability.

Praise is rarely effective as a form of feedback because praise is rarely directed at addressing students' understanding of their current level of performance, the desired level of performance, or strategies to close the gap (see "feedback"), and therefore is an ineffective tool for enhancing learning. When feedback draws attention to the self, students try to avoid the risks involved in tackling challenging assignments, to minimize effort, and have a high fear of failure in order to minimize the risk to the self (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie, 2012).

Research indicates that praise may have the following drawbacks: Reducing interest in the learning task, lowering task performance, sustaining minimal effort, generating disappointment and discouragement for those not receiving the praise, creating dependency, invoking resentment and setting up negative expectations, and promoting conformity while limiting creativity (Larivee, 2002).

Further, Carol Dweck (2006) found that receiving praise for being smart led students to have an exaggerated sense of how well they had perform and leads them to be less persistent in finishing problems, enjoyed working on problems less, and performed worse than students who were praised for effort. Dweck has more recently gone on to claim that even praising effort may be problematic if it is not connected to learning, suggesting that in cases where effort was not leading to achieving desired learning goals, rather than praising effort alone teachers should add “Let’s talk about what you’ve tried, and what you can try next.”

Hattie's research on effective teaching (2012) indicated that part of the problem with praise is that it usually contains little task-related information and is rarely converted into more engagement, commitment to the learning goals, enhanced self-efficacy, or understanding about the task. By incorporating praise with other forms of feedback, the learning information is diluted; praise includes little information about performance on the task and praise provides little help in answering the three feedback questions.

To the extent that praise is useful, it is the quality rather than the quantity of praise that is important (Wiliam, 2011). Teacher praise is far more effective if it is infrequent, credible, contingent, specific, and genuine (Brophy, 1981). It is also essential that praise is related to factors within an individual’s control, so praising a gifted student simply for being gifted is likely to lead to negative consequences in the long term (Dweck, 2006).

Sources:

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5-32.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Dweck, C. (2015, September 23, 2015). Carol Dweck revists the "Growth Mindset", Commentary. Education Week.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.

Larrivee, B. (2002). The Potential Perils of Praise in a Democratic Interactive Classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4), 77-88.

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.