The best way to teach — whether as an educator, employer, or parent — is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.
The author contends that most effective way to teach is to praise positive actions and to ignore negative ones. While praising positive actions and ignoring minor mistakes are advisable to an extent, the statement overlooks the consequences of excessive praise as well as benefits of constructive criticism. Teaching is a holistic process that aims to develop the skills of students by praising their achievements while addressing their shortcomings through critiquing their work.
Verily, praising of positive actions by parents, teachers and employees has many fold advantages. Appreciation motivates students to excel in their studies. For example, a student takes initiative to study the books beyond the standard syllabus. When a teacher praises such a venture, he would gain a sense of satisfaction and confidence to continue with his endeavor. Additionally, his peers, in an attempt to solicit such adoration from teachers, would be tempted to take similar initiatives, thereby, propelling all of them to higher academic success. Likewise, by giving the deserved plaudit to the employees, managers can guarantee greater loyalty and contribution from the subordinates while ensuring a healthy workplace ambience. Similarly, young children realize the virtues of positive deeds when praised by parents
Moreover, excessive and unwarranted criticism is detrimental for the psychological well-being of children, students, and employees. Mistakes are an inevitable by-product of natural learning process. When students are reprimanded for every wrong answer, unfounded doubts, etc., they lose the motivation to learn and confidence to engage in the learning process. In the offices, an atmosphere of surveillance and a non-pardoning nature form the boss would diminish the employees’ trust and commitment to the work. Similarly, when children are scolded by parents for every trivial misdemeanor, they lose interest and curiosity in exploring and learning from their surroundings. Therefore, it is indeed advisable to ignore minor mistakes that naturally stem from the learning and work process.
However, beyond these concessions, the author’s recommendation has some cautions. Foremost, excessive praise is equally damaging to the psyche of students, employees and children as undue criticism. If a teacher excessively adores a student, he may grow in overconfidence and begin to underestimate his peers. He may also start inculcating complacency; and would then never develop his skills and knowledge. Moreover, the teacher would lose respect and credibility in the eyes of other students. Similarly, a manger heaping uneven praise on particular employees would be perceived as discriminatory by the others who would feel alienated. On the other hand, children lose the value of praise and, thus motivation for positive work, when flattered too much.
Finally, an amount of constructive criticism is also necessary while teaching. Critical judgment is necessary for students to learn from mistakes and address their shortcomings. Therefore, teachers must not shy from providing a critique of students’ assignments, projects, and tests. Obviously, actions that disturb the classroom learning warrant appropriate punishment. Similarly, managers have the responsibility to critique employees’ output for their professional development. They must also safeguard them from bullying and harassment by adopting a zero tolerance policy towards such behavior. Lastly, children must be reprimanded for behavior that risks their lives as well of others by explaining them its consequences.
In conclusion, the author’s binary recommendation of praising positive actions and ignoring negative ones is counterproductive. Whether praise or criticism, if excessive and exclusive, both are psychologically damaging for children, students, and employees. Judicious admiration for positive work as well as constructive criticism for mistakes are indispensable part of holistic teaching process for educating students, promoting employees’ growth, and upbringing children.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2024-10-22 | Celestina Asantewaa | 50 | view |
2024-08-26 | aaa111 | 33 | view |
2024-07-13 | sepnkycehmqcodjefl | 50 | view |
2024-06-30 | sefeliz | 66 | view |
2024-04-17 | guozhishan | 50 | view |
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 69
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. 83
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student s field of study 80
- Some people believe that the most important qualities of an effective teacher are understanding and empathy Others believe that it is more important for teachers to be rigorous and demanding in their expectations for students 79
- The effectiveness of a country s leaders is best measured by examining the well being of that country s citizens 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 598, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
...surveillance and a non-pardoning nature form the boss would diminish the employees’ ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 460, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to warrant'
Suggestion: to warrant
...ons that disturb the classroom learning warrant appropriate punishment. Similarly, mana...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, look, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3431.0 2235.4752809 153% => OK
No of words: 573.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98778359511 5.05705443957 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89258810929 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24285434046 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 215.323595506 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513089005236 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 1041.3 704.065955056 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 20.2370786517 163% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.0894264556 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.96969697 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3636363636 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.33333333333 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20124541853 0.243740707755 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556544868219 0.0831039109588 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0884247781714 0.0758088955206 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124609858666 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10308301399 0.0667264976115 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.17 12.1639044944 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.77 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 192.0 100.480337079 191% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.