The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and support

What is the most favorable and effective way to teach our children? The given statement argues that parents and educators should acknowledge and reward their children for their ‘positive actions’ but ignore otherwise. Adding to the ambiguity of the argument, I am skeptical about the effectiveness of such way of teaching for the following reasons.

One of the most critical problems of the argument resides its use of vague terms—‘positive actions’ and ‘negative ones.’ Simply stating positive and negative actions is not enough to be put out as the best way of teaching. Each educator may have different perspective on this, and thus expect the same child to do different things in different ways. For example, some may consider crying is a positive way of releasing emotional frustration when a child cannot verbally capable, whereas others may consider it requiring strict discipline—or complete ignorance, according to the given statement. Considering the fact that one of the most critical qualities in teaching is consistency, especially when teaching young children, setting a vague standard could be critically detrimental for emotional and intellectual development of the children.

Beyond the use of ambiguous terms, taking a binary approach in teaching children should not be encouraged since it would not guide the children to be responsible individuals, but only limit their cognitive ability. Conventional wisdom tells us that every matter around us is multifaceted. Although an action seems positive, it may not in other contexts or from other perspective. Consider, for example, that a child shoves this friend to protect his little sister, upon which his friend was about to fall. In this case, can we say the action is positive or negative? If his action were simply ignored for being considered as negative, the child would not be able to reflect on his own action nor his rationale behind his action. To better guide the child, the educator should have a conversation with him and help him to see a various aspects of such action, rather than simply ignoring the action and leaving the child confused.

Of course, as some may still argue, there must be positive aspects in encouraging ‘positive action’ by rewarding and praising a child and in discouraging ‘negative action’ by ignoring negative ones. This has actually been proved by a few social psychologists, such as Skinner. He showed that it is possible to reinforce positive behaviors by an adequate and immediate compensation. This may be effective for training an animal, but teaching children is not limited to training them to eat when they are allowed. Education is about helping them to find a value and meaning in their lives by communicating with their parents and educators. Thus, we should provide them at least a consistent standard with an understanding that the world is not binary—‘positive’ or ‘negative.’

To sum, although I admit that there is some efficacy in the way of teaching suggested in the statement, I tend to disagree that children should be edified based on the binary scheme. Children deserve more than simply being ‘trained’ to repeat their ‘positive’ actions.