Writing Feedback / 'positive reinforncement to teach is to praise positive actions, ignore negative ones [3]

The best way to teach-whether as an educator, employer, or parent-is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.

'
The argument attempts to state that the best way of teaching is through the praising of positive actions. The underlying assumption that is therefore needed for the putting forward of my following reasons is that to measure the definition of best, it has to be quantified through an improvement in performance or a revelation of any of that sort. I fundamentally tend to agree with the speaker's assertion primarily based on a few cogent reasons as stated below.

The power of positive reinforncement has been psychologically proven through case studies. There was a psychology test that was done in the UK in the 1970s, results previously published in the Lancet, a renowned scientific journal. The experiment went like this: two groups of students of almost equal distribution of intellectual and learning capacity were separated into two classes which were provided with resources as equal as possible - equally qualified teachers and equally capacious classrooms, every variable factor was tuned to be as equal as possible except for one thing : One class was designated as Class A and the other Class B. Throughout the entire year, Class A students were praised by their parents for their high performance since they were placed in the putative better of classes while Class B students went through an entire year or chastising and berating (on the assumption that they were not as good). The results of the two classes were obtained at the end of the year were astonishing. Class A students, who were assumed to be the far superior lot for the entire lot, had far superior performance than the Class B's, despite the fact that a year before their performances were at equal standings. This speaks volume of the importance of positive reinforncement in the education sector, whereby following the same argument of the experiment, teachers who praise positive actions are able to increase students' performance. This phenomenon can be explained psychologically since the students feel cared for, happy and are willing to learn.

This sets the foundation for one of my other supporting reasons. Teaching that emphasizes on praising positive actions and ignoring negative ones are able to engender an atmosphere that is conducive to learning. One of the reasons that inhibit learning curves of students stems from the fear of teachers, who forcefully shove information down students throat through threat of punishment. An educator who constantly praises positive actions can garner respect from his/her students since the barrier between the two has been eliminated. The sharing of information, rather than the forceful spoonfeeding of information as such, is able to flow more smoothly to better results.

Apart from that, analyzing the current work sector we would come to the realization that praising of positive actions is constantly being carried out as well. CEOs and employees of companies are promised bonuses at the end of the year if they were able to hit a performance target. The working ethos of companies plays heavily on the influence of positive reinforcement of actions since they know that promising a reward for positive actions would yield to a better performing company as opposed to striking fear in their hearts. This is a great way of teaching or coaching employees to increase their level of productivity.

Some cynists would smirk at the fatal consequences if we were to simply ignore negative traits of people. That streak would ultimately grow into a tumor which would plague the society. In light of this argument, I would love to provide a counter-example that occurred in the political arena in the 1980s. Apart from showing that positive reinforncement would work, it showed how through the practice of positive reinforcement, the ruler of the country was able to teach kindness to his people through a simple act. Thailand was deep in the throes of communism warfare and guerilla-style fighting in the 1980s. The ruler then, through a series of failed efforts to try and contain the conflagration, issues an edict that was boggling at that time: communists who were willing to put down their weapons would be granted full immunity and co-opted into the government. The decree at that time generated a groundswell of opposition but tracing down the line 20 years from that incident, previous communists who joined the government did not, even through a single instance, was involved in a bloodshed or coup-de-tat. One of the ex-communists was even promoted to a senior officer. Through a simple act of praising positive actions (that of recognizing the common good of mankind), the wise king brought about a change which shook the principles of people for years to come.

Teaching is an intricate task which covers the dissemination of knowledge but beyond that, entails the imparting of life's lessons to any single individual. Threat and punishment might work within a short time frame, but in the long run, only positive reaffirmation through the praising of positive actions would have long-lasting results.

'

I am not very sure of my points since I'm mostly talking about positive reinforcement. The topic question demanded 'praise positive actions AND ignore negative ones' Not sure if I covered the 'ignore negative part' adequately.

Please comment. Thanks

Undergraduate / Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. [2]

The imparting of knowledge in formal learning institutions are done through teachers. They, a coterie of qualified professionals trained in the art of disseminating knowledge, have a major influence on a student's life. A teacher can make the most boring of subjects interesting through a well-thought out teaching plan and interesting charisma, so can it be the other way around. Hellen Keller found her way back into life through a dedicated and caring teacher. However in view of the statement tying teachers' salaries to their students' academic performance, I fundamentally tend to disagree with the speaker's assertions due to reasons stated below.

The first reason of my belief is that there is a lack of a standard academic performance test in place. The question that will definitely arise is what is the best method or test to gauge a student's academic performance. If we were to go by tests carried out by respective schools, we will be certain that the standard would differ and thus there would not be a standard gauging scheme. The tests that abound today are mostly aptitude test, for instance the SAT (scholastic aptitude test) which primarily measures the students' grasp on vocabulary, reading comprehension and mathematical prowess. It is a foregone conclusion that academia does also include Geography, History, Science etc and there are no standardized tests out there for them as of yet. The next problem that would arise is what about the group of students who are taking a minority subject, say for example anthropology? The judging scheme would thus be different since it does not take into account the entire schooling population but rather, involve only a small minority group. Would the assessment be any different since a smaller number of sample size is affected? My first point of the lack of standard gauging tests thus hinges on these argument which clearly show it would be unwise and untenable to tie the teacher's salary to the students' performance.

In addition to that, if a teacher's salary were to be based on students' academic performance, this would bring about a biased way of giving of marks. We have to be largely aware of the fact that students' test papers are graded by teachers, and if a teacher receives a higher salary were the student to perform well, needless to say there would be many unscrupulous individuals who would accord their students higher marks to their own benefit. Critics might argue that assessment of a particular class of students can be done by a different teacher, but I foresee a system that would be plagued with corruption and bribery. What if the class teacher bribes another teacher, or what if the teacher intentionally gives bad grades because they know that it would affect the class teacher (who might be someone they do not favor)? Many what-ifs might take place which would ultimately jeopardize and challenge the education system. In light of that, I think that the statement is not valid and sound.

Furthermore the statement can only hold true assuming that all teachers get students who have the same level of intelligence, commitment, determination etc. Teachers who are teaching better performing classes would most definitely have the upper hand since their students would do better compared to students of other classes. Even if we were to base it on the percentage of improvement of a student's grade, we have to similarly take into account that each individual is different. In a poor performing class, the improvement ratio of a student willing to learn and another who is not concerned with academia would definitely yield different percentages. So the validity of the statement essentially falls back on a student, for he/her through his attitude can affect the teacher's salary, which sounds outright fallacious.

In a nutshell, based on all the reasons provided, I find myself disagreeing with the writer's assertions. As of now, the lack of a standardized test and the many variable factors that are in place would not make this plan an appropriate one.

Writing Feedback / Laws should be flexible (take account of various circumstances, times, and places) [4]

Possible to throw in some feedback? Appreciate it.

"
One of the primary constituents of a civilized country is having laws in place to guide the traction of the country and its people. Tracing history back to ancient times, laws started off as verbal non-written rules before slowly morphing into constituted principles. This happened in tandem with the rise of civilization which gave shape to regulatory institutions. On a fundamental level, I tend to agree with the speaker's assertion that laws should be flexible enough to take into account the circumstances, times and places.

For starters, we should look into the reason for the formation of laws. Although there might be a multitude of dissenting views as to the jurisdiction of laws, at least all of us can agree on the same page that laws were created to guide the workings of an institutionalized body. I am therefore staunch in my belief that decisions should be made according to the basic tenet of the law, which is to grease the traction of the body, which might entail different interpretations when it comes to different individuals. We have to take into account the issue of subjectivity, each person would harbor a different understanding of the law and the ruling might differ. As such, to have a fair and impartial ruling, the authorities should always trace the deed back to its root cause as to determine whether it jibes with the basic principle of the corresponding law, rather than blinding passing out judgement according to his/her personal interpretation of the book.

One of my main reasons that laws should be flexible is that too many differing circumstances abound as to pass out a generic blanketing judgment. Take for example the case of abortion. This has been rightfully outlawed in many states in the United States especially those that are skewed toward the right-wing policy. However the law has not fully taken into account the many special circumstances, for the instance the aborting mom was a victim of a horrendous rape or that health issues might complicate the mom's life if she were to go through with her delivery. It is easy to judge that abortion is illegal by the eyes of the law on a prima facies basis, but if we dig deep enough, we realize that the outlawing of abortion was to uphold the sanctity of the human right of the baby. I advance the question: what about the right of the mother? Especially if she were to have been subjected through a rapcacious rape ordeal. The crux thus is to allow flexibility of the law to judge the issue on a per case basis.

In addition to this, my next reason stems from the change in times and along with that, the view of people. Same-sex marriage was banned in United States since time immemorial but New York recently lifted the law under the aegis of Senator Andrew Cuomo to much delight of homosexual couples. The law was changed primarily due to its obsolescence and the rise in acceptance of homosexuality in this society. The laws should therefore look into the era and the intricacies that era entails before deciding to stick to a law, as antediluvian as that law might seem to be.

Furthermore, another reason that substantiates my point of view can be traced through the example of my country. The ruling coalition of the Kedah state passed out a law a couple of days ago banning entertainment outlets from opening in the holy month of Ramadhan, the month when the Muslim cohorts fast from food and sexual stimuli in the process of cleasing themselves. This law, as outrageous as it might appear to be, at least seems apt in a state inhabited by predominant Muslims. If we were however to apply the same law in Sydney for example, people would have balked. This example perfectly illustrates the flexibility of the law when it comes to different municipalities and areas: it has to compromise with the local cultures and traditions.

In essence, through the aforementioned examples I have provided, I am skewed toward agreeing with the speaker's stance. Circumstances, places, times and other factors should definitely be considered in the making of a law. The failure to do so would most definitely bring about discontentment which might lead to uprisings, as vividly shown through the spate of uprisings in the Middle East due to the draconian laws that have been put into place without allowing any flexibilities. Immutable laws that survive times are important and the only way to do so is create a set of laws that can be changed with respect to different circumstances, times and places.

"

I am largely aware that there are mistakes grammar and structure wise (still need getting-used to the short time limit). I'm rather interested as to whether my points/examples show a clear maturity or simply put, are they sound and valid?