Destructive impact of praise in learning
This text is part of: "I would never send my kids to school" by Piotr Wozniak (2017)
Rewiring the brain
One of the main sins of school is the corruption of the reward system in learning. In healthy learning, the brain is naturally rewarded by the effects of learning. In schooling, the whole array of fake rewards is employed to compensate for the lack of reward from the learn drive system. The more strict the school system, the lower the efficiency of fake rewards. In the end, a system of penalties and restrictions needs to be employed to induce further learning. The efficiency of learning keeps decreasing, while the level of satisfaction keeps dropping in the course of schooling.
There is nothing wrong with saying "Good job!" to a happy kid who has just solved a difficult problem. However, in the extreme case, we can make kids memorize nonsense by just providing the praise they may crave. A healthy child should be impervious to such manipulations, however, a great deal of children crave approval so much that they are ready to memorize anything just to receive rewards from adults. This is the first step to a disastrous reconditioning of the brain. Rewards affect the output of the knowledge valuation network. As a result of the war of the networks, the brain gradually loses the ability to sift applicable knowledge from chaff that just needs to be memorized. After years of schooling, we may condition the brain for readiness to cram any incoming information on demand. If this comes with difficulty, the brain will also be primed for toxic memories, anxieties and, in the long run, depression.
Unconditional love
Unconditional love does wonders to learning. It frees the child from the impact of praise, criticism, or abuse. When love, safety, and stability are never threatened, the child will not bother taking adult emotion too seriously. As the name implies, unconditional love is free of valuations, and its only signal is the love itself.
The unconditionally loved child is free and feels free. It is also the child that will make the teacher mad. It is impervious to standard signals of praise and criticism, or even verbal abuse. In my own case, this unconcerned attitude is probably what saved me from the harm of 26-years of schooling and also, for many years, kept me ignorant about the damage schooling does to others.
Formula for a happy kid
Among teachers and parents alike, one of the reasons for employing lavish praise is the strive to keep kids happy at all times. In terms of the formula for a happy life, kids are not much different than adults. If sustained contentment is achievable for adults (see: Simple formula for happiness), it should even be easier to kids. After all, kids are less concerned about the problems of the adult world, and still not injured by the ravages of stress and abuse. Praise and criticism should not even play much role in the equation for child's happiness. Pain may foster resilience and a happy frame of mind. A happy kid is not a kid who is under constant lavish praise. A happy kid is the one that is healthy, loved, and with a constant opportunity to play, learn, and grow. A heavy scolding for bad behavior should be no more than a tiny kink on the happiness seismograph.
Accelerated aging of students
In the world of schooling, creativity, and participation in sports drop from year to year. Alfie Kohn noticed that "research shows that by the middle—or certainly by the end—of elementary school, intrinsic motivation starts to tail off sharply—by an extraordinary coincidence, around the time that grades have started to kick in".
For society transformed by coercive education, this is a natural and easily explainable process. It has nothing to do with healthy development or aging. The progression is solely an outcome of the coercion in learning or in sports organized by adults for maximization of goals set by adults. Love of learning and love of exercise can and should last a lifetime. It is the distorted valuation system, and the resulting loss of personal freedoms that kills the best human qualities that keeps societies happy and productive.
We largely know that kids don't like school. However, the universality of that dislike is highly underappreciated. See Gallup research:
The Gallup Student Poll surveyed nearly 500,000 students in grades five through 12 from more than 1,700 public schools in 37 states in 2012. We found that nearly eight in 10 elementary students who participated in the poll are engaged with school. By middle school that falls to about six in 10 students. And by high school, only four in 10 students qualify as engaged. Our educational system sends students and our country's future over the school cliff every year
Having asked a nearly thousand kids questions about their feelings about school, I know that this research falsifies reality. The definition of "engagement" must be very fluid. If we separate social aspects, and minor likes, the dislike of schooling must go well above 90% (and I am very cautious with numbers here).
I am yet to meet 15-19 year old who would say with conviction to my face: "I like school". Younger kids who claimed so in the past, now renounced their original claim. By 15, the dislike of school is universal. The hate of school is pretty common. Fake reward system that drives futile learning based on rigid curriculum stands at the core of the problem. Gallup has stellar reputation for its methodology, but asking kids about school on the school grounds stems from a basic misunderstanding of school conditioning. Once in the walls, the kid brain is warped. The way they talk, think, and interact with adults is warped. I am no Gallup, and my football field polls are not scientific. However, there I get the true sentiment of kids about school. We cannot just register the first reaction to the question: "do you like school?". This reaction will be vastly misleading (see: Some kids like school). What really counts is the narrative behind all colors of emotions associated with schooling.
Recent polls at local schools aimed at establishing the drug use rate were truly a farce. Kids told me they would never provide true answers in written questionnaires that were anonymous in name only. In a small room with a few kids under a supervision of a teacher, all you can expect is the "right answer". The one that has been schooled in advance.
Responsiveness to praise
Some kids are more sensitive. Each step they take they look up to adults and look for feedback. Others get engrossed in the job at hand. The sensitive kid will make fast progress, and will impress early. However, it is the indifferent kid that is more likely to show the rage to master. In its rage to master, a kid may enter the state of "flow" that is not only a happy state. It also has a dramatic impact on learning and creativity. We need all kinds of personalities in society where diversity is the basis of creative strength. Mute kids with a rage to master may turn out great communicators at later ages, esp. when they need the skills and put an effort to improve. However, they will always be harder to control and in better harmony with inner self. Future Einsteins may come from those more "autistic" types, but it is the sensitive kid who might be destined for a Nobel Prize in literature.
We tend to marvel over the kid who is sensitive to the signals from the adult world. However, the same sensitivity makes the kid more vulnerable to fall pray to fake reality formed by the reward system engineered by adults.
Admissible praise
Using research and practical observations, psychologists and educators suggest a number of conditions necessary to avoid the harmful effects of praise. The conditions refer to the form of praise or its target.
Praise that controls
Many educators will tell you that praise is ok as long as it not used to control the child. In reality, all forms of praise are a form of control as long as the kid responds. Praise repaints the environment by changing valuations of objects, events, goals, etc. (see: Knowledge valuation network). Instead of avoiding control, we should simply focus on positive control. Primum non nocere. For example, valuations are a reflection of a child's understanding of reality. Praise-induced revaluations may simply paint a more accurate model of the world. If valuation help a child converge on the truth, the praise is, by definition, positive.
Sincere praise
A number of psychologists insist that praise must be sincere to be effective. However, many parent and teacher believe that praise is always good, even if it is exaggerated.
The verdict is simple: praise shapes valuations and determines the future of society! We do not want fake praise as much as we do not want fake science. Truth underlies good decisions. There is no added benefit from praise to the level of contentment as there is no value of drugs for the mood of a healthy mind. Fake praise is like a fake mood stimulant. It may temporarily boost the mood, but it will do more harm in the long run.
Clear praise
John Hattie insists that praise and criticism must be clear to be effective. It is true, however, noisy valuations are important too. It is up to the neural networks in the brain to make order in chaos. Again, it is better to praise or criticize naturally in noisy conditions, than to try to strategize and risk limiting the flow of information.
Praise of effort
Dr Carol Dweck insist we should not praise the ability. Her research shows that praising the effort is more productive. However, her findings cannot be taken too dogmatically. When I first see a kid who is great at sprinting, or in football, or just seems incredibly knowledgeable, it is only naturally for me to express my admiration. I literally cannot keep my mouth shut. Is that bad? Dweck's advice seems more appropriate for parents and teachers, i.e. those who can actually see the process, the growth, the effort. The praise that comes from a mouth of a stranger adds up to one of those signals from the environment that help a child chisel out his own trajectory. On occasion, a kid may actually dislike being praised by a stranger. More often than not though, it adds to his contentment with a confirmation "I must be on the right track". Why should I deny the reward which might be one of the drivers of further progress? Those praise-not-praise choices are not easy and their efficiency is based on the social skills of the praiser (see: Optimum socialization). Some people are smarter, or more universally socialized, and they might be better praisers. I believe that a good praiser is not likely to do much harm from the position of a stranger.
The applicability of Dweck's research is also reduced by the fact that we naturally stop praising the ability when it stagnates. If a kid masters reading early on its own, it is only natural to call it smart or incredible. This is a seeming violation as it praises the ability. But this kind of praise does not last. Reading becomes commonplace. We praise the positive change. That differential nature of praise reflects the differential nature of human happiness. After all, the praise is a reflection of happiness with a child's progress. In a sense, first instance of the praise for the ability is a case for praising the effort that lead to that ability (assuming that the ability is trainable).
I disagree with Carol Dweck when she says "learning can be hard". This is because of the Fundamental Law of Learning. Praise should never be used to make learning less hard. Learning must be its own reward. If it is made less hard by extrinsic rewards, it will only becomes less effective.
Anger as criticism
If yelling is natural, perhaps it is not bad. If it intimidates the child, it can be considered a form of violence and coercion. If it is just one of many signals a kid consumes, there might be no harm. Taming the inner beast often brings more harm than good. Instead of strategizing, I would focus on harmonious living, mental hygiene, and a great deal of learning.
Which praise is ok?
All praise is a form of control, as such it always carries a risk. It should always be sincere. It is more effective when it is clear. It should focus on praising progress and effort. It is best when it is natural and derived from intrinsic emotions. Praise should be born from knowledge based on a rich bank of social skills.
Grades as school reward
Progressive educators keep condemning the practice of grading at school. Grading is part of the school drive. Good grades are rewards, bad greats are penalties. For this, grades at school are harmful.
However, grading does not need to be harmful. This can be best understood with grades in SuperMemo.
Alfie Kohn denounces praise
Books by John Holt and John Taylor Gatto explain in detail the controlling nature of schooling. Holt adds that we can only motivate children extrinsically with bribes and penalties.
In the 1980s, Alfie Kohn began his effort of documenting the harm done by praise. He is now the most vocal and prominent opponent of praise in education. In 1993, Kohn wrote "Punished by Rewards", which explains how manipulating behavior destroys efficient learning. Using my lingo, Kohn advocates the same approach as mine: to shield a child from the harm of praise, provide unconditional love and rely on the learn drive.
In 2001, Kohn wrote (source):
Mary Budd Rowe, a researcher at the University of Florida, discovered that students who were praised lavishly by their teachers were more tentative in their responses, more apt to answer in a questioning tone of voice (“Um, seven?”). They tended to back off from an idea they had proposed as soon as an adult disagreed with them. And they were less likely to persist with difficult tasks or share their ideas with other students
Kohn also noticed that "Rewards are most damaging to interest when the task is already intrinsically motivating" (source). Indeed, we do not praise kids for long hours over TV, or computer games, or on a football field. Even many hours with a book may go unnoticed.
When I use the term praise, I usually mean a verbal reward in general. Alfie Kohn often uses a narrower term in which a praise comes after fulfilling a certain condition. This is also why Kohn's claims may sound more radical than mine. When Alfie says "reward warps the relationship between the adult and the child", I am more moderate and say "reward changes" or "reward can warp" (assuming that "warp" means "falsifying change").
Kohn also says that "praise for success at relatively easy tasks sends a message that this child must not be very bright". His stance is counterintuitive to many a teacher:
I'm struck by teachers who say over and over to me, “You don't understand the kind of backgrounds and home lives that these kids have; they come from loveless, sometimes brutal places, and you're telling me not to praise them?” My answer is, “Yes.” What these kids need is unconditional support and encouragement and love. Praise is not just different from that; it's the opposite of that. Praise is, “Jump through my hoops, and only then will I tell you what a great job you did and how proud I am of you.” And that can be problematic. Of course, with positive feedback, it's a matter of nuance and emphasis and implementation. That is not the case with gold stars, candy bars, and A's, which I believe are inherently destructive
In my book, there is only one major problem with praise: distorting the valuation of knowledge to the detriment of the student!
Kohn's analysis in "Five Reasons to Stop Saying 'Good Job!'" is spotless, however, not all reward decisions are black and white. Where Alfie suggest withdrawing praise, I might suggest simply going with the instinct. My approach is easier and is probably more likely to provide accurate valuations than a strict praise embargo. Most of all, Alfie Kohn looks for an universal formula, which may apply in a classroom. My approach might be more appropriate to a parent or in conditions of unschooling where verbal reward may be a form of helpful guidance within the confines of the push zone.
The core problem of reward in learning is that we try to manipulate a child and find the strategy instead of capitalizing on a natural learning process and a natural interaction. We keep thinking in terms of a teacher-student interaction instead of noticing that all humans are designed to learn and to love learning. The whole trouble starts when we try to improve upon the process, speed it up, and direct it from the outside.
Optimum push reward
As any strong modeler, Alfie Kohn has always had his circle of fierce critics who seem to understand his reasoning only superficially. Years ago on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Kohn was confronted by kindergarteners and teachers who vouched for, and extolled the value of rewards in "education". One of the teachers mentioned a program of paying kids for reading books. This idea is as bad as paying kids for eating chocolate with one insignificant difference: we want more books and less chocolate. The teacher noticed that once kids get to read books for money, they get to like the process, therefore, the policy makes sense and should be promoted. In that case, rewards allegedly make sense.
For starters, I never trust parents nor teachers. If a teacher tells you that a money bribe pulled a kid into reading, she is highly likely to have a very specific child in mind, and a closer analysis may reveal that it is not the bribe that caused the change, but the books themselves, combined with child's personality. The effect was just a matter of time. The reward might have been a trigger.
In conclusion, if a reward is a tool of school drive that hit the optimum push zone, it will indeed have its benefits. All forms of coercion may have this property, even spanking or yelling that most educators renounce. We need to remember though that for a healthy kid, the optimum push is usually very gentle on the scale of possibility. Can we spank to improve child's reading? Yes. It is possible that a slap can be beneficial. However, it would probably need to be gentle enough to result in a happy smile, i.e. the opposite of "penalty". In case of rewards, the optimum push zone may be slightly wider because we generally tolerate positive incentives better than penalties.
In case of reading, the size of the reward is less important (e.g. $1 vs. $1000). What is more important is its extent in time. The optimum push reward might be small or sizeable, however, it should quickly lead to natural reward associated with reading. In other words, the monetary reward is just a momentary push, while the actual reward is generated by the pleasure of learning. Alfie is right. If we keep paying for reading, we will only make the kid think that reading sucks and that it should only be done for money.
If paying for books is codified as a "policy", it quickly becomes a bad policy mired in bad decisions of educational bureaucrats. The chances for optimum push would be minimal. However, there will still be cases where a reluctant student transforms into an avid reader. Those cases will be inflated anecdotally and paint a bad policy as a "good educational tool".
Optimum level of praise
Some educators believe we should always praise and minimize the criticism. This idea is derived from the gas gauge theory of self-esteem. Is there an optimum level of praise that maximizes growth, or emotional well-being of children or students? I say there is no optimum level of praise as there is no optimum level of stress in life. Life is a Poisson process of events. Stressful events can come in groups. It never rains, it pours. Reasons for praise or criticism are equally unpredictable. We derive our reactions from social skills and we should not play with the praise control valve. Happy life is full of unhappy surprises. A happy child will hear a great deal of unhappy news from those who care most.
My simple solution is to (1) stay knowledgeable (i.e. keep learning), and (2) follow your "natural instincts" (i.e. rely on your social skills).
I need just a few signs to recognize a smart young man in seconds. I love to praise the potential and speculate with rosy predictions on the future. Is this a rush to premature valuation with possible harmful impact? I do not thinks so. I believe in natural reactions.
Parents vs. teachers
The optimum praise based on instinct clearly shows why a parent is an inherently better educator than a teacher. To make sure praise does not warp effective valuation, intimate knowledge of the child is essential.
Changing schools and teachers is one of the key reasons teachers may be dismal in controlling valuation via praise and criticism. In their case, Kohn strategy may be best: stay cool, and withdraw praise and criticism.
Teachers are often wrong on instinct. They are more likely to complain by ignorance, use a wrong motivational strategy (e.g. overpraising, praising grades, insincere praise, etc.). Shaky valuation by praise, criticism and grades can be a serious source of distress for a student. This is one of the components that lead to school hate.
If reward comes from the learn drive, the student will try to maximize it by improving upon the learning process. When the reward comes from the outside, an opportunity to manipulate the outcome will be one of the optimization factors taken by the brain. No wonder then that praising kids can increase the chances of cheating (source).
Grading at school in particular is a kind of reward that can lead to disastrous outcomes. See Dangers of being a Straight A student.
Praise or criticism are a reflection of teacher's expectations. This is why parents are best teachers if they can provide unconditional love when expectations do not matter for emotional stability. A hypercritical dad, and a lavishly loving mom can all send healthy signals as long as the signals are not anchored in conditional love. A teacher may be a different type of beast. It takes a long while for a healthy relationship to develop and this is not easy in the school system that always seems to live in perpetual crisis. It is hard to be critical in reference to a stranger without forming a negative reaction. The most constructive criticism comes from long-term relations. The form of criticism may then be secondary. The "constructive" part may come from separating valuations from relations. In other words, best criticisms come from those who we trust, where we see no malignant intent, just a sheer valuation.
Criticism always entails the risk of producing a rift. So it is less potent in relationships that are less intimate. Closeness is vital for society. Family and love are vital. It is almost impossible to receive effective socialization without close links with others. A mere regular interaction with strangers is not enough.
Religion of praise
Grades are the mainstay of the school reward system. Grades are largely indiscriminate for the quality and stability of knowledge. Short-term memory often trumps long-term memory. Recitation often trumps comprehension and coherence. Volume often trumps applicability. The harm caused by grades is solidified by the system of grading that becomes a religion of praise.
My own story provides an interesting example:
In 1980, my teacher in Polish literature, Roza Strozik, granted me back my freedom. The freedom that has been taken away by the compulsory education system. I failed her class, but she set me free with words to that effect: "You are smart. You know biology. I do not want to block your future. I will let you go". That was one of the nicest moments in all my 26 years of schooling. I was finally free. I could study biochemistry instead of studying Polish literature. My teacher, a guardian of the Prussian school model, used her heart and reason to overrule the dictates of the system. For details of this story see: Why I do not read fiction.
One of my well-schooled colleagues was outraged. He considered my teacher's decision as an act of injustice against other students. They had to work hard for their grade. I got mine for free. "This is so unfair!" he exclaimed. Nobody seems to pause to ask if this was fair to make a teen fight for a grade he did not care about, or read books he hated. As if he did not have his own brain to determine his own ways in life.
My colleague's protest made me think that the whole grading system at school develops into a sort of moral code. The moral code of school clearly made my colleague empathize with the social pain of school injustice. However, school moral code is a code with no higher purpose. My colleague has been conditioned to experience fake injustice stemming from a fake code inculcated by the system to keep students in check. There was no actual harm to anyone, and yet my colleague concluded my fellows students must have experienced social pain.
It seems that a school system is subject to the same rules of evolution that may corrupt any religion. At first, religions and ethic codes formulate healthy rules derived from the game theory, e.g. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or "never accept a grade you do not deserve".
However, due to the evolving nature of the human mind, perpetual indoctrination seems necessary to keep the rules in place. This is why regular church or school attendance becomes part of the moral code even if absence from church does no harm to nobody. This is why truancies get penalized. Grades are used as the assessment of performance and equity protects students from mental harm. Except, the whole indoctrination is entirely redundant. The moral code of fair grades becomes a new religion. As much as religions often demand "the one and only true God", good school indoctrination leads to glorification of schooling and a great deal of mythology that would not be possible without the school system in the first place.
We begin with good rules of moral conduct, and end up with a worship of gods that leads to genocide of those who worship another god. Noble religions lead to ignoble acts.
Roza Strozik paved way to spaced repetition (in 5 years) that might benefit a billion people soon (see: Exponential adoption of spaced repetition). She paved way to incremental reading (in 20 years). She paved way to this site. She granted freedom to a teen slave. She made the right decision in the name of a better future for mankind. However, it still leaves her decision marked as "immoral" in the ethic code of school religionConclusions
We often invest a lot in research to look for smart strategies to "improve" upon nature. This approach backfires on a regular basis, and the lesson seems to always be the same: stay natural!
The right formula for praise is:
- provide unconditional love to reduce the impact of extrinsic rewards
- stay knowledgeable to maximize the quality of impact
- stay natural and stay close to capitalize on natural social skills that make decisions easy
Needless to say, the conditions of love and staying close make it hard for the school system to replace a parent in the impact on extrinsic motivation. Parental praise should be a pastel paintbrush, while the praise at school makes it into an inherent part of a system of bribes.
For praise to be harmless, it must not affect a child's autonomy. An unobtrusive hint that leads to a broader smile is probably all we need in a definition of "good praise".
Picture
Praise is part of the system of rewards and penalties that I dubbed the school drive (in analogy to the learn drive). The picture below illustrates the competition between school and passions that almost inevitably leads to a degree of loss of love for learning:
Figure: This is how school destroys the love of learning. Learn drive is the set of passions and interests that a child would like to pursue. School drive is the set of rewards and penalties set up by the school system. Learn drive leads to simple, mnemonic, coherent, stable and applicable memories due to the fact that the quality of knowledge determines the degree of reward in the learn drive system. School drive leads to complex, short-term memories vulnerable to interference due to the fact that schools serialize knowledge by curriculum (not by the neural mechanism of the learn drive). Competitive inhibition between the Learn drive and the School drive circuits will lead to the weakening of neural connections. Strong School drive will weaken the learn drive, destroy the passion for learning, and lead to learned helplessness. Powerful Learn drive will lead to rebellion that will protect intrinsic passions, but possibly will also lead to problems at school. Storing new knowledge under the influence of Learn drive is highly rewarding and carries no penalty (by definition of the learn drive). This will make the learn drive thrive leading to success in learning (and at school). In contrast, poor quality of knowledge induced by the pressures of the School drive will produce a weaker reward signal, and possibly a strong incoherence penalty. The penalty will feed back to produce reactance against the school drive, which will in turn require further coercive correction from the school system, which will in turn reduce the quality of knowledge further. Those feedback loops may lead to the dominance of one of the forces: the learn drive or the school drive. Thriving learn drive increases rebellion that increases defenses against the school drive. Similarly, increased penalization at school increases learned helplessness that weakens the learn drive and results in submission to the system. Sadly, in most cases, the control system settles in the middle of those two extremes (see: the old soup problem). Most children hate school, lose their love of learning, and still submit to the enslavement. Their best chance for recovery is the freedom of college, or better yet, the freedom of adulthood. See: Competitive feedback loops in binary decision making at neuronal level
Copyright note: you can republish this picture under a Creative Commons license with attribution to SuperMemo World, and a link to the updated version here
