b********y
发帖数: 268 | 1 Positive Parenting: Encouragement versus praise
We live in a culture where a blue ribbon, a gold star, a trophy, or at
minimum an enthusiastic "Good job!" has become commonplace and even expected
when children participate in an activity, regardless of their effort or
outcome. Many feel these practices are important to build a child's self-
esteem and are harmless, but in fact, they are neither.
While each of these events in and of themselves are not individually harmful
, and are sometimes perfectly appropriate, the practice of continually
praising or over-praising a child can be. The problem with praise is that
children begin to expect constant acknowledgement and conversely are alarmed
when they don't get it. They come to rely on external praise rather than
develop internal motivation or confidence in their emerging abilities. They
stop doing things because they should or they can, and instead do them for
the recognition.
Further, according to Carol Dweck, Ph.D., a professor at Columbia University
, children who come to rely on praise take fewer risks, because they are
unwilling to lose their praise-worthy status. When children seek praise (
consciously or unconsciously) they tend to avoid anything they won't get '
right': which is unfortunate because mistakes, trial and error, and risk-
taking are critical elements of any learning process.
This matters whether you're parenting a toddler or teen. The impact of
praise on a child starts early. In fact, in a study facilitated by Dr. Dweck
children as young as fourteen months had begun developing opinions about
themselves and their abilities based on the praise their parents gave them.
As children age, if they only define themselves by good grades, winning, or
anytime they receive praise, they'll feel less competent or worthy when
these things are absent (i.e. the real world).
So what should we do instead?
As an alternative to praising a child's end result or the child themselves,
we should offer encouragement for their efforts and attitudes. Encouragement
can be inspirational and motivating - a gentle, supportive nudge that helps
children meet important goals - instead of self-defining and limiting.
And when we do praise children, it should be genuine: praise that is
specific (i.e. "That was very kind of you to clean up your toys without
being reminded") rather than generic (i.e. "You are wonderful") and praise
focused on behavior (i.e. "You came up with a very creative solution")
rather than the person (i.e. "You are so smart").
In Dr. Dweck's study, children who received encouragement were more likely
to believe their intelligence could change and they could do better if they
tried hard, whereas children who were praised felt their intelligence was
fixed and were already, even in the toddler years, avoiding experiences
perceived to be challenging.
Here are a few concrete examples of praise versus encouragement:
Generic or Person-Centered Praise Encouragement or Genuine Praise
You are always so beautiful. I like the combination of patterns you chose
to wear today.
Good job! You really stuck with that - your
hard work paid off.
What a smart kid you are! I can tell you're working hard on
reading because you finished a longer book.
What a pretty picture. The colors you chose for that sunset are
unique.
You sure are strong. That was the first time you've jumped rope
without stumbling.
You are so organized. I appreciate the way you organized the
shelf, it makes it easier to find everything.
I am so proud of you. You look proud of yourself! You really
proved you can do it.
Sure - encouragement may not roll off the tongue as easily, but it is worth
the effort. Here are a few additional benefits to encouraging children
rather than praising them.
Encouragement:
• Recognizes and fosters continual growth and effort.
• Does not cause children to compare their achievements, or compete
about who is smarter, prettier, faster, etc.
• Fosters independence - children gain a sense that their own
abilities can get them what they need and want.
• Emphasizes effort, progress, and improvement rather than just
results.
• Recognizes contribution rather than completion or quality over
quantity.
• Promotes perseverance rather than giving up if a child doesn't
initially achieve the success he expected.
• Allows children to learn about, rather than measure, themselves.
• Prepares children for real-world challenges where they will be
expected to do much more than show up to earn recognition.
• Doesn't build false self-esteem (i.e. "I am so smart. I can do
anything") but instead builds determination and confidence (i.e. "I have the
ability to do many things if I work hard").
• Does not do for children what they can do for themselves.
Children who receive encouragement or genuine praise are also more resilient
. Because they are focused on their effort and believe they can change their
circumstances through determination or learning, they are not as shaken by
adversity.
On the flip side, children who have been praised for a fixed personal
characteristic such as their intelligence or good looks, are confused by set
-backs and view them as a personal reflection rather than a growth
opportunity. In addition, children who receive stickers or a high fives for
doing mundane tasks like putting their shoes on, begin to expect praise
when praise isn't called for and take it personally when it doesn't come (
which will inevitably happen as they age); the praise becomes more important
than the achievement.
Of course, it is okay to express pride in your child; it is a natural way to
demonstrate love and support. But it is important to understand that if
self-confidence and development are the goals, encouragement is a much more
useful strategy. After all, when our children are on their own and faced
with a challenge, we know it won’t help them to think, "Why can't I do this
? I should be smart enough." but it will serve them well to think, "This is
tough, but with effort I can probably figure it out."
As parents, we can do a lot in these younger years to build that kind of
thinking from the start. There is no need to take drastic steps and snatch
the soccer participation trophy out of your child's hands, but some
reflective thoughts and words of encouragement on your child's effort and
growth throughout the season will ensure their joy comes from their
developing abilities and confidence in their own skills rather than the
shiny award sitting on their shelf.
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 2 这个文章说的有道理。。。
其实真实世界里面，正确和错误并不是非黑即白，非零即一。
当然，对某一次考试，对了就是对了，错了就是错了。
但是对一个 continuous development，或者另一个角度，
把所有的 考试/测试/学习 等等，合起来作为一个 super-set。
从这个角度看，做对一次并不是就从此完事，做错一次通常并不是
罪大恶极。在这个 super-set 里，任何事都有其一定的影响，但
只是个有限的影响。具体影响多少，具体情况分析。。。 | w*********e
发帖数: 383 | 3 Big fan of Carol Dweck! 她现在不在哥伦比亚了，是斯坦福的教授了，这篇文章有年
头了。
Dweck 2006 年的书 Mindset 讲的就是如何造就 a growth mindset. | w*********e
发帖数: 383 | 4 Tidewater, what do you think of Alfie Kohn:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php
He thinks your any one element in your super-set fundamentally impacts how
kids think of themselves, corrupts their intrinsic motivation as well as
derails them from achieving authentic success. He's quite passionate and
controversial.
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 这个文章说的有道理。。。
: 其实真实世界里面，正确和错误并不是非黑即白，非零即一。
: 当然，对某一次考试，对了就是对了，错了就是错了。
: 但是对一个 continuous development，或者另一个角度，
: 把所有的 考试/测试/学习 等等，合起来作为一个 super-set。
: 从这个角度看，做对一次并不是就从此完事，做错一次通常并不是
: 罪大恶极。在这个 super-set 里，任何事都有其一定的影响，但
: 只是个有限的影响。具体影响多少，具体情况分析。。。
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 5 正在快速浏览他的观点，但我没看到你说的 “any one element in your super-set
fundamentally impacts”。。。我觉得他是不喜欢 standardized test 的方式，
这点俺跟他的观点有所接近。
我倒也不是全盘反对 standardized test，没办法，school 总是要有所
accountability。所谓 accountability 就是让外人用一个 number 来
judge 好跟坏。这样的 judgement 不会太科学的。
我个人对娃 standardized test 的结果看得比较淡，甚至对错本身也不重要。
重要的是娃为啥犯错，也就是 underlying cause 更重要。另外俺不赞成娃去
单纯应付考试。俺昨天看了娃的 school 的 reading homework，差不多就是
这样。分数有时候是 misleading 的。
但是现实而言，社会平均水平的家长不会去花这么多时间。所以 standardized
test 有其现实意义。其实 standardized test 的相当大的意义是在 lower
the cost，the cost of labor to nurture a kid。便宜么。。。不要
指望太精确。。。
【在 w*********e 的大作中提到】
: Tidewater, what do you think of Alfie Kohn:
: http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php
: He thinks your any one element in your super-set fundamentally impacts how
: kids think of themselves, corrupts their intrinsic motivation as well as
: derails them from achieving authentic success. He's quite passionate and
: controversial.
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 6 比如摘抄下来的下面这段：
Educational researchers have discovered that there is a
significant difference between getting students to think
about their performance (that is, how well they are doing)
and getting them to think about the learning itself (what
they are doing). These orientations often pull in opposite
directions, which means that too much emphasis on performance
can reduce students’ interest in learning -- and cause them
to avoid challenging tasks. When the point is to prove how
smart you are, to get a good grade or a high test score,
there is less inclination to engage deeply with ideas,
to explore and discover. Thus, as Alfie Kohn argues, the
problem with standardized testing is not only how bad the
tests themselves are, but also how much attention is paid
to the results. Even new, "authentic" assessments may
backfire if students are constantly led to ask, "How am
I doing?" Getting students to become preoccupied with
achievement may paradoxically undermine this very goal
because of what happens to their motivation in the process..
我觉得非常有道理。俺看到娃 reading homework 做错题目的时候，
先跟她解释她的 library reading 在目前不会 help classroom
reading，是因为那是不同的东西。但是两者都很有用都很重要。。。
具体不在这个水贴上罗嗦了。。。
关于做错的题目，俺跟娃说对几个错几个不重要，重要的是为啥犯错。
犯错是正常的学习过程。我根据答案概念偏离的程度在做错的题上，
打上一个或两个叉，让娃重读重做一边。。。等等。。。不写流水账
了。。。不过说一句，做完之后，俺跟娃说了一个，就是即使 test
全对了，也不能证明是已经是 good reader 了，（就是光精读是
不够的，为啥云云。。。也不在水贴上罗嗦了。。。）
【在 w*********e 的大作中提到】
: Tidewater, what do you think of Alfie Kohn:
: http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php
: He thinks your any one element in your super-set fundamentally impacts how
: kids think of themselves, corrupts their intrinsic motivation as well as
: derails them from achieving authentic success. He's quite passionate and
: controversial.
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 7 这个 Alfie Kohn 的 link 不错，收藏了慢慢看，谢谢。
【在 w*********e 的大作中提到】
: Tidewater, what do you think of Alfie Kohn:
: http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php
: He thinks your any one element in your super-set fundamentally impacts how
: kids think of themselves, corrupts their intrinsic motivation as well as
: derails them from achieving authentic success. He's quite passionate and
: controversial.
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 8 还有这个 point：
“When the point is to prove how smart you are, to get
a good grade or a high test score, there is less
inclination to engage deeply with ideas。。。”
这个说得非常在理。reading 不是显示娃有多 smart，而是有用。
泛读就比较容易平衡这个问题，娃头疼看头疼书，学校里发现头虱
就看头虱书。。。自己不疼看看别人为啥疼。。。这个对分数帮助
不大，但是我觉得对娃的人生应该有帮助的。。。所以我觉得一定
程度的 downplay 分数有其必要性。。。大活人人不能被 number
噎着吧。。。 | y***r
发帖数: 458 | 9 跟这个观点直接相关的一个问题是，如何使用奖惩系统？
学校的奖惩系统，家里的奖惩系统，基本都是最直接有效对孩子行为进行调控的手段。
如果标准化考试以及分数只做参考数据，只是做评估，恐怕是其产生的本意，跟奖惩系
统并不直接挂钩。可惜随之而来的问题是，不以客观数据为依据的集体里的奖惩评判是
不是太主观了呢？
其实真正对奖惩操作的不好才会取代对知识本身的好奇心。相当于外界长时间输入强度
不一的stimilus，最后形成反射，但与操作者真正想要强化的行为并不一致。
这里面的关键是，输入stimilus的条件，强度，以及接收者对其的反应，本身是一个复
杂系统。试图找到大一统的答案并不现实。本质原因就在于接收者对stimilus的反应差
异区间太大。 | t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 10 我觉得不需要太多奖惩系统，读书这玩意儿不是练钢琴，娃应该天生
就有兴趣的。再加上父母的 role modelling，应该差不多了。奖惩
只是在小方面没办法调节一下。
比如我的娃两年级看电视，俺们开始试了一个看电视时间的限制奖惩，
有效果但是实在是一般。所以俺觉得娃是不是 boring，于是就带她
看 PBS NOVA 而不是 PBS Kids。开始很难很费时间，不过现在娃
基本主动不看电视了。
当然，按前面研究教育的理论，可能是父母与娃的 interactive，
而不是 NOVA 节目本身那么神奇。。。
【在 y***r 的大作中提到】
: 跟这个观点直接相关的一个问题是，如何使用奖惩系统？
: 学校的奖惩系统，家里的奖惩系统，基本都是最直接有效对孩子行为进行调控的手段。
: 如果标准化考试以及分数只做参考数据，只是做评估，恐怕是其产生的本意，跟奖惩系
: 统并不直接挂钩。可惜随之而来的问题是，不以客观数据为依据的集体里的奖惩评判是
: 不是太主观了呢？
: 其实真正对奖惩操作的不好才会取代对知识本身的好奇心。相当于外界长时间输入强度
: 不一的stimilus，最后形成反射，但与操作者真正想要强化的行为并不一致。
: 这里面的关键是，输入stimilus的条件，强度，以及接收者对其的反应，本身是一个复
: 杂系统。试图找到大一统的答案并不现实。本质原因就在于接收者对stimilus的反应差
: 异区间太大。
| | | y***r
发帖数: 458 | 11 具体操作其实也简单，在parenting界流行了有一段时间了： comment或者feedback的
时候，不要judge，而是给出有指导性的信息。
smart啊，好啊，对啊，都是judge的语言；这个细节你注意到了，所以这个问题就回答
得非常到位，就是指导性的信息。 | t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 12 不过学校还是需要分数系统，主要是对于老师总得有个客观评价，不能
造成劣币驱逐良币的系统。所以俺觉得那更多的是社会行为学要求，而
不是教育 science 的要求。
家里就不太需要了，自己的娃，父母总是有 nurture 自己娃的动力吧。
【在 y***r 的大作中提到】
: 跟这个观点直接相关的一个问题是，如何使用奖惩系统？
: 学校的奖惩系统，家里的奖惩系统，基本都是最直接有效对孩子行为进行调控的手段。
: 如果标准化考试以及分数只做参考数据，只是做评估，恐怕是其产生的本意，跟奖惩系
: 统并不直接挂钩。可惜随之而来的问题是，不以客观数据为依据的集体里的奖惩评判是
: 不是太主观了呢？
: 其实真正对奖惩操作的不好才会取代对知识本身的好奇心。相当于外界长时间输入强度
: 不一的stimilus，最后形成反射，但与操作者真正想要强化的行为并不一致。
: 这里面的关键是，输入stimilus的条件，强度，以及接收者对其的反应，本身是一个复
: 杂系统。试图找到大一统的答案并不现实。本质原因就在于接收者对stimilus的反应差
: 异区间太大。
| y***r
发帖数: 458 | 13 我跟完全反对奖惩系统的家长沟通过。
目前我对奖惩系统的观点是存在即合理，因为在学校里面是行之有效的工具。
在家里用不用，我觉得看家长自己。我个人倾向于不用，但我也认识有用的效果很好的
家庭。不过就算用，我个人的观点是也应该限制在短时期，小范围，因果关系简单的项
目上，最后要有phase out的工作。
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得不需要太多奖惩系统，读书这玩意儿不是练钢琴，娃应该天生
: 就有兴趣的。再加上父母的 role modelling，应该差不多了。奖惩
: 只是在小方面没办法调节一下。
: 比如我的娃两年级看电视，俺们开始试了一个看电视时间的限制奖惩，
: 有效果但是实在是一般。所以俺觉得娃是不是 boring，于是就带她
: 看 PBS NOVA 而不是 PBS Kids。开始很难很费时间，不过现在娃
: 基本主动不看电视了。
: 当然，按前面研究教育的理论，可能是父母与娃的 interactive，
: 而不是 NOVA 节目本身那么神奇。。。
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 14 我觉得这个不是奖惩，而是 evaluate 东西的对错。
这个重要的不是好不好，而是，比如娃的 reading，这个题目她是 misunderstood 了
question 里的一个词，另一个题目她是没有注意到两个概念的差别。这个是实事求是，
其实娃 overall reading 还可以了，但是 comprehension 这一栏还错了不少。
但大部分错的原因（而不是题目本身）对 overall conceptual 的 comprehension
不是那么关键的影响，确实是 miss 了一些 detail。但 comprehension 首先是
overall 的 concept，其次才是 details。Standardized test 很难测试
overall 的 concept 的建立，因为这是一个相对有点模糊的东西。
不实事求是才会打击娃的积极性，我觉得。。。
【在 y***r 的大作中提到】
: 具体操作其实也简单，在parenting界流行了有一段时间了： comment或者feedback的
: 时候，不要judge，而是给出有指导性的信息。
: smart啊，好啊，对啊，都是judge的语言；这个细节你注意到了，所以这个问题就回答
: 得非常到位，就是指导性的信息。
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 15 学校里一定要有奖惩，否则就不买那个学区房。。。俺上面说了，这个是社会行为学
的问题。
家里面，各家有各家的自由，能抓老鼠就是好猫了。不过 open-mind 的讨论总是
好的。
【在 y***r 的大作中提到】
: 我跟完全反对奖惩系统的家长沟通过。
: 目前我对奖惩系统的观点是存在即合理，因为在学校里面是行之有效的工具。
: 在家里用不用，我觉得看家长自己。我个人倾向于不用，但我也认识有用的效果很好的
: 家庭。不过就算用，我个人的观点是也应该限制在短时期，小范围，因果关系简单的项
: 目上，最后要有phase out的工作。
| y***r
发帖数: 458 | 16 实事求是在具体环境中也要考虑很多因素的，不是客观真理这么简单。
好或者不好的evaluate要同时建立在主观的判断和对客体的了解基础上。给出的肯定或
者否定态度就是虚化的奖惩，我所谓的stimulus。
是，
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得这个不是奖惩，而是 evaluate 东西的对错。
: 这个重要的不是好不好，而是，比如娃的 reading，这个题目她是 misunderstood 了
: question 里的一个词，另一个题目她是没有注意到两个概念的差别。这个是实事求是，
: 其实娃 overall reading 还可以了，但是 comprehension 这一栏还错了不少。
: 但大部分错的原因（而不是题目本身）对 overall conceptual 的 comprehension
: 不是那么关键的影响，确实是 miss 了一些 detail。但 comprehension 首先是
: overall 的 concept，其次才是 details。Standardized test 很难测试
: overall 的 concept 的建立，因为这是一个相对有点模糊的东西。
: 不实事求是才会打击娃的积极性，我觉得。。。
|
|
