CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter sets out to review the literature related to teacher praise, its functions, then
discuss the classifications of teacher praise and students’ perception in previous studies.

1.1. Teacher praise: definition and functions

1.1.1. Definition of teacher praise
The term “praise” is derived from the Latin verb “pretiare”, which means to value
highly (Burnett, 2002), and involves “commending the worth of or to express approval or
admiration” (Brophy, 1981). By definition, praise is “positive evaluation made by a person of
another’s products, performances or attributes, where the evaluator presumes the validity of the
standards on which the evaluation is based” (Kanouse, Gumpert & Canavan – Gumpert, 1981, p.
98). This was selected in part because it is comprehensive, and resonates well with commonsense
conception of praise. According to Hitz & Driscoll’s research on the use of teacher praise in the
classroom (1989), effective praise was thought to occur when the teacher positively
acknowledged students’ work. They pointed out that this required teachers to be non –
judgemental to prevent status being assigned to students.

1.1.2. Functions of teacher praise

There are two main functions of teacher praise: praise as reinforcement and praise as
informational feedback. Along with the development of language teaching, different methods
and approaches have emphasized on different functions of teacher praise.
Praise as reinforcement
As a behaviorist, Skinner (1974) was forming the belief that language was learnt
through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement. Reinforcement is the process by which
the likelihood of a certain response following certain stimuli is increased. Hence, in the time of
Audio-Lingual Method, reinforcement as the extrinsic approval and praise of the teacher or
fellow student or the intrinsic self-satisfaction of target language use is a vital element in the
learning because it increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again and become a
habit. When administered properly, such positive reinforcement can successfully modify
behaviour and stimulate learning.
 In the educational settings, this use of praise as a positive reinforcement has been
widely recommended as a teaching strategy. Stringer & Hurt (1981, p. 1) stated that “the
communication transaction of verbal praise is an interpersonal experience and plays an
important role in the reinforce ment process, which in turn affects the learning and behavioral
activity of students.” Furthermore, Thomas (1991) referred to praise as a kind of positive
reinforcer, with consistent praise thought to encourage desirable behaviour, while extinguished
undesirable behaviour. He suggested that praise could be a motivational tool in the classroom if
reinforcement was descriptive and involved using the students’ name, choosing appropriate
praise words carefully and describing precisely the behaviour that merits the praise. Similarly,
Woolfolk (1987), quoted in Moore (2007, p. 202), discussed praise as reinforcement that
teachers use a rewarding stimulus to motivate some action or behaviour. Numerous researchers
have demonstrated that teacher praise can improve academic behaviour. Blaney (1993)
investigated the effects of teacher praise on academic achievement of elementary students,
comparing groups that were taught using high (i.e., praising correct responses, providing
corrective feedback for incorrect response) versus low (i.e., neutral feedback, such as “OK” for
correct responses and “No” for incorrect responses) levels of teacher praise. The author found
that students in the groups that received higher rates of praise for correct responding performed
significantly better on academic tests than did students who received lower praise rates for
correct responding.

Praise as informational feedback

In contrast to behaviourists, constructivists in Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) emphasize interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language.
Therefore, the teacher acts as an advisor during communicative activity, a facilitator of students’
learning, or a co-communicator, and helps learners in any way that motivates them to work with
the language. So, praise in this approach is regarded as both communicative reinforcer and
informational feedback.
In its essence, praise is “a form of feedback that conveys information about the
correctness or appropriateness of answers and other behaviours, as well as information about
the teacher’s positive regard for the behaviours” (Emmer, 1988, p. 32). For example, a teacher
praises his student with such a statement as “Wow, you’ve done great on your presentation!”
 However, it is noticeable to make a distinction between praise and feedback. Whilst
praise always provides feedback, not all feedback is praise. That is, when a teacher gives a praise
statement, he informs the student about whether his answer is favourable/ acceptable or not. On
the other hand, there are many cases in which teacher feedback does not include praise. Just by
saying “okay”, “right”, “correct” or giving a letter grade or percentage score, teachers are
providing feedback. Moreover, praise is more personal than feedback in the sense that it also
expresses positive teacher emotions such as surprise, pleasurability, excitement and admiration
and/or place the student’s behaviour in context by giving information about its value or its
implication about the student’s status. Flander (1970), cited in (Brophy, 1981), regards praise as
teacher reactions that go beyond simple feedback about appropriateness or correctness of
behaviours. Sharing the same view, Blote (1995) holds that teacher praise contains positive
affect and is a more intense, detailed response to students’ behaviour than feedback.

1.2. Classification of teacher praise

There exist many ways to classify teacher praise, among which content (what to praise)
and manner (how to praise) can be utilized as the bases for categorizing it in educational settings.
In terms of what to praise and levels of praise detail, teacher praise can be sorted out as effort or
ability praise, general or effort praise. Considering how to praise, teacher praise can be classified
as verbal or non – verbal praise. Thus, three facets of praise are effort versus ability, general
versus specific, and verbal versus non – verbal.

Effort versus ability praise

Effort, which is often used synonymously with strategy or process praise, is a type of
praise that focuses on a specific strategy the student used to complete a task. An example of a
teacher giving a student effort praise would be, “Wow! You did great! You must have worked
hard on this.” On the other hand, ability praise, which is used synonymously with trait – oriented
or person praise. “Wow! You did well on this task! You are very smart,” would be an example of
a teacher offering a student ability praise.

General versus specific praise

 Based on the way teacher praise is administered, it is also often divided into one of two
categories, general or specific praise. The first type is the form of praising which is directed
either at no one in particular or if directed at an individual, it is generic in its use. Some
illustrations of this type are “Great job, class!” or “Well done, Jonny”. General praise also lacks
credibility because it takes no effort at all for a praiser to give a compliment without having paid
any attention to the performance of the person. In contrast, specific praise is both directed at an
individual student and very specific in what is being praised. Considering the following
statements as examples of specific praise, “Nice job explaining absolute value, Rita” or “Amy, I
really like how you used deductive reasoning to answer that question”. It is obvious that specific
praise not only lets the student know they are correct, but it is also meaningful because it allows
them to see exactly what specific behaviour the teacher is praising and to know that the teacher
has been paying attention to their performance.

Verbal versus non – verbal praise

Coooper et al., (1994) looked at the different ways praise can be delivered, verbally and
non – verbally. Verbal praise occurs when the teacher follows a student action or response with
some type of positive comment. The common type is one – word praise or brief phrases such as
“Good,” “Excellent,”, “Correct,” or “That’s right”. Another commonly overlooked form is the
use of student ideas. This technique can be used by applying, comparing or building on student
contributions during a lesson. Incorporating student ideas shows that what they say is important
and usually increases the degree of student participation. Non – verbal praise refers to the use of
some physical action to send a message of approval for some student action or response. The
physical action can be in the form of eye contact, a nod, a smile, a movement toward the student,
a relaxed body, a pat on the back or such positive gesture as “thumb – up” or OK sign.
Three mentioned subscales, effort versus ability praise, general versus specific praise,
and verbal versus non – verbal praise are all taken into consideration in this research study.

1.3. Students’ perception of teacher praise

1.3.1. A framework of students’ perception
 All three aspects of human mind, cognition, affection and conation, work together and
affect the learning process. Snow, Corno and Jackson (1996, p. 247) presented a provisional
taxonomy of individual different constructs that links cognition (procedural and declarative
knowledge), affection (temperament and emotion) and conation (motivation and volition), as
shown in the following figure:

Figure 1.1: Constructs of three components of mind

Cognition refers to the process of coming to know and understand; the process of
encoding, storing, processing and retrieving information. It is generally associated with the
question of “what”. Affection concerns about the emotional interpretation of perceptions,
information and knowledge. It is generally associated with one’s attachment, either positive or
negative, to people, objects, ideas…and asks the questions with “How do I feel about this
knowledge or information?” Conation refers to the connection of knowledge and behaviour. It is
the personal, intentional, deliberate, goad – oriented, or striving component of motivation, the
proactive aspect of behaviour. In this paper, interpretation and analysis of students’ perception of
teacher praise involves integration of thinking (cognition), feeling (affection) and acting
(conation).

1.3.2. Students’ perception of teacher praise

In a series of related studies, various researchers have to do much work to explore how
students perceive teacher praise in classrooms.
Regarding students’ preference for ability versus effort praise, a study performed by
Burnett in 2001 (n=747) measured Australian primary school students’ preferences for teacher
praise. Results showed that 91% of students preferred to be praised often or sometimes while 9%
said that they never wanted any praise. It was found that most students (84%) had a preference of
effort praise, rather than ability praise (16%). The findings of Burnett suggested that if teachers
meet students’ preferences for praise, they would often give effort type. In another study
conducted by Merret & Tang in 1994, 1779 British primary students were asked about their
preferences for rewards, praise, reprimands, and punishments. Again, an astounding 90% of the
students preferred to receive praise often or sometimes. These results are in line with Burnett’s
mentioned earlier.
Some psychologists (Apter, 2009) warned that praise for overall ability was harmful
because it suggested that any good performance was a result of natural ability, which implied
that a poor performance was a result of natural deficiency. Praise for an outcome that
emphasized ability then made students reluctant to take on a challenge, which always had the
possibility of failure, because it signaled lack of ability. Failures then threatened one’s overall
self – esteem. Henderlong and Lepper (2002) argued that ability praise may have unintended
consequences for motivation, performance, and determination, especially when students
experience continuous setbacks in the areas in which they were praised. In six studies, Mueller
and Dweck (1998) looked at the effects of praising for ability and effects of praising for effort on
fifth – grade students and how they handled these types of praise under conditions of failure and
conditions of success. Their overall conclusion is that it can be problematic to praise students in
terms of their ability or intelligence rather than their hard work or effort. However, on the basis
of self – efficacy theory, Schunk (1984) reasoned that ability praise should produce higher
expectations for future performance than effort praise because of the stronger competence
information, particularly for children in the early stages of learning a new task.
With respect to gender differences, Koestner, Zuckerman, and Koestner (1989) argued
that, in success situation, boys may be comfortable with ability praise, whereas girls may be
more comfortable with effort praise. They included that perceptions of competence,
performance and intrinsic motivation were all enhanced for boys when ability praise was given,
and the same were enhanced for girls when effort praise was given.
Concerning the impacts of specific and general teacher praise on students’ perception,
Burke, cited in Loo (2009), found that giving specific praise reinforced good behaviour in a way
that general praise could not. In adults, the act of giving a general praise is often dismissed as
being insincere because it alludes to the fact that the person was not really noticing in the first
place. He found that people associated general praise as just a formality of communication, to
make the other person sound caring, but nothing more than that. He concluded that if we could
make our praise much more specific towards the behaviour that warranted the praise to begin
with, then the effects of that praise would be felt by the individual and taken as genuine. The
result in Burnett’s study (2002) also indicated that general teacher praise was not related to
students’ perception of the classroom environment or their relationship with their teachers. He
believed that whilst general praise did not affect students’ perception, the specific types of praise
did.
As regards to verbal and non – verbal praise, some researches claimed that verbal
praise, when used correctly, can enhance the learning process. In two separate studies, Hancock
(2000, 2002) found that undergraduate and graduate students who were exposed to verbal praise
reported that they studied significantly more outside the classroom than students who were not
exposed to verbal praise. He believed that verbal praise is an important mediator in the
enhancement of students’ motivation to learn. However, other researchers have argued that
verbal praise can have potential negative consequences. They have wrapped up that not all
students prefer to be praised verbally. For example, Elwell & Tiberio (1994) realized that while
adolescents perceive praise to be important to academic achievement, they do not want to be
praised verbally in front of their classmates. It may be even more powerful than verbal praise.
Research suggests that when verbal and non – verbal messages differ, students tend to respond to
the non – verbal message. (Moore, 2007, p. 204)

The results of the previously described studies suggest that different types of teacher
praise is perceived differently by different groups of people. It is also recommended as a
powerful tool in the classroom for producing desirable academic responding. As such, one might
expect that teachers use praise effectively as part of their teaching repertoire.