The Student Room Group

"Teachers should not give sweets and chocolates as a reward"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Chad_Bronson
Parents do it to their children all the time - If we're making that statement, it's not fair that we penalise just teachers.


Surely it would be best to start somewhere?
Sweet rewards in my schools have been rare but it's wonderful when you get some sweets for a correct answer! :smile:

And a pity when your answer is not...
Reply 82
Original post by carnationlilyrose
We've been advised not to give out sweets so that the kids aren't overdosing on sugar and being hyperactive. I still do regardless, but I have more of a tendency to give out more permanent things, mainly from Tesco's party bag fillers aisle. I keep a stash of non food items anyway, for the kids who can't eat the gelatine in Haribo and Percy Pigs. The older the kid, the more juvenile the item. The upper sixth go mad for bubbles, because they know that their time for that kind of thing will be officially over when they leave school and they want to recapture their childhood one last time.


aww
I think it also encourages pupils to try and engage more- the promise of a reward can encourage those who're reluctant to speak to give an answer!
Original post by kka25
aww

Yeah, I know. I'll miss them. When you get a decent A level group you can talk to, it's like losing friends after 2 years.:frown:
Reply 85
Not for you but for me.
Original post by Donald Duck
As an earlier comment stated, it's not the pack of haribos. It's the connection with food as a reward.


but surely giving the children sweets as reward for doing something good is better as then they see sweets (or any other unhealthy food) as a treat and therefore don't consume sugar is large amounts?
Reply 87
Original post by cid
rooted in a primitive part of our psyche... so is pooping in the corner.

It is not a 'teaching technique' it is indulgence of misbehavior, over use of the carrot in an age where the stick is all but banned.

It is nothing more than laziness from educators who either cannot or cannot be bothered to construct a lesson that is both engaging and informative or are too non confrontational to tell an unruly child to shut up or get out.

All these quick rewards do is affirm in a child's mind that good behaviour deserves reward and then what happens at another point when instant reward is not produced?


That is the most piss poor argument I have ever seen presented on this website.

Excretion is an integral part of not only our biology but our fundamental makeup. It is not in our 'instincts' to poo anywhere but a toilet, it is in our 'instincts' to poo where it is most convenient, which to us is the toilet.


You cannot extrapolate this argument and apply it to positive reward, which is a fully backed up scientific theory (the highest level of scientific proof, others theories include sch things as gravity, electricity etc). Many experiments, most notably the skinner box experiment, have demonstrated that irregular reward in response to the correct actions by the subject compel the subject to continue doing those positive actions. This doesn't mean reward kids with sweets on a regular basis (ie when they do anything right), it means reward them sometimes when they get something right.

This serves the dual purpose of refuting your argument that kids will become reliant on it and, with all it's proof from science, debunks your argument completely.
Original post by carnationlilyrose
The older the kid, the more juvenile the item. The upper sixth go mad for bubbles, because they know that their time for that kind of thing will be officially over when they leave school and they want to recapture their childhood one last time.


Completely agree. If year 7's get given stickers, thay're not too fussed about it. Us Y13s get far too excited over them.
Original post by .snowflake.
Completely agree. If year 7's get given stickers, thay're not too fussed about it. Us Y13s get far too excited over them.

Year 7s want to be more grown up, so they aren't keen on things they associate with primary school. U6s have grown up, realise it's not quite what they thought and would quite like to go back. They've also developed a sense of irony by then.
Original post by carnationlilyrose
Year 7s want to be more grown up, so they aren't keen on things they associate with primary school. U6s have grown up, realise it's not quite what they thought and would quite like to go back. They've also developed a sense of irony by then.


probably. Or its something to do with the fact that the stickers are shiny.
Original post by .snowflake.
probably. Or its something to do with the fact that the stickers are shiny.

Ooooh. Shiny!
Original post by carnationlilyrose
Ooooh. Shiny!


there are, or was a few years back, some shiny smily face stickers in staples.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 93
Last school I worked in they had a specialized learning tool on the computers which adapted to each child. The policy was to give children who gained 80% or higher a sweet reward from the big tub. The idea was that after every 80% or above the software actually changed the skill level of the student and gave them a gradually harder set of questions the next time around!

I thought that was an absolutely wicked idea! The kids had no idea that the system recorded their answers and tailored the software individually and the teachers effectively used sweet rewards to get the children to become more competent in maths. It was an absolutely amazing set up. It did suck having to say no to a kid begging for a sweet with 75% score though :o:(
Original post by .snowflake.
there are, or was a few years back, some shiny smily face stickers in staples.

I used to work in a school where they kept a big box of rubber stamps in the staff room. They said the usual positive things, but there were a couple I particularly liked: 'Have you read what you've written?' and 'Ooops! You've slipped up there!' which was accompanied by a picture of a penguin landing on its backside. I don't think the kids minded which one they got, actually.
Reply 95
Original post by Ocassus
That is the most piss poor argument I have ever seen presented on this website.

Excretion is an integral part of not only our biology but our fundamental makeup. It is not in our 'instincts' to poo anywhere but a toilet, it is in our 'instincts' to poo where it is most convenient, which to us is the toilet.


You cannot extrapolate this argument and apply it to positive reward, which is a fully backed up scientific theory (the highest level of scientific proof, others theories include sch things as gravity, electricity etc). Many experiments, most notably the skinner box experiment, have demonstrated that irregular reward in response to the correct actions by the subject compel the subject to continue doing those positive actions. This doesn't mean reward kids with sweets on a regular basis (ie when they do anything right), it means reward them sometimes when they get something right.

This serves the dual purpose of refuting your argument that kids will become reliant on it and, with all it's proof from science, debunks your argument completely.



I never said kids became dependent on reward, only that they expected it, if they are rewarded in trivial matters but not for greater things what message does it send. My argument is not that it doesn't work, but it shouldn't be required.

- Students should not require instant gratification in the form of food/gifts
- Teachers should not be purchasing items themselves for students
- Teachers should not be required to reward or discipline students

Is this a recent thing? I have been to eight different schools and never seen this done.




Also pooping in the corner was convenient thousands of years ago before the invention of the toilet, when man dwelled in caves, the toilet being a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of human existence...
Reply 96
My chemistry teacher gave us sweets on the last day of 6th year. Felt like I was a wee boy again, choosing from a massive bag of ****e cheap sweets...it was great!!!
Original post by cid
I never said kids became dependent on reward, only that they expected it, if they are rewarded in trivial matters but not for greater things what message does it send. My argument is not that it doesn't work, but it shouldn't be required.

- Students should not require instant gratification in the form of food/gifts
- Teachers should not be purchasing items themselves for students
- Teachers should not be required to reward or discipline students

Is this a recent thing? I have been to eight different schools and never seen this done.
It isn't required. It's something I like to do because I like my students. It is also my business what I spend my money on.
Original post by Donald Duck
Surely it would be best to start somewhere?


Start penalising the parents, then.
Reply 99
Original post by cid
I never said kids became dependent on reward, only that they expected it, if they are rewarded in trivial matters but not for greater things what message does it send. My argument is not that it doesn't work, but it shouldn't be required.

- Students should not require instant gratification in the form of food/gifts
- Teachers should not be purchasing items themselves for students
- Teachers should not be required to reward or discipline students

Is this a recent thing? I have been to eight different schools and never seen this done.




Also pooping in the corner was convenient thousands of years ago before the invention of the toilet, when man dwelled in caves, the toilet being a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of human existence...


What I find intriguing about your post is how you determine what is considered trivial and important matters in a school. Presumably the behaviorist approach to learning and the association of positive behaviors to rewards (sweets) is aimed at increasing the child's ability in a particular subject. Wouldn't learning be seen as a "greater thing", and thus would it be so bad to link good behaviors to rewards like sweets? :confused: I don't get what your standing for, because the act of giving sweets is done purely with the intention of getting students to engage more with the subject material!

as for your bullet points;

1. Students should not receive instant gratification in the form of sweets? I disagree... This is a distinct strategy for engaging students with material and whilst I agree that a teacher should not solely rely on this method, it does allow teachers to link positive behaviors with little rewards which kids enjoy! Also, kids need instant gratification a lot of the time! If you don't give kids gratification, then they lose self confidence and disengage from the material.

2. Teachers are some of the kindest people in the world! Devoting their careers to helping kids learn. In my opinion they can spend their money on whatever they like if they feel it will help the kids learn just a little bit better. The maths teacher I worked with a few weeks ago used to give out a packet of mints each lesson (6-8 packs a day!). The impact was that the kids liked him and engaged with the material better! One could say it was a bit of a bribe, but hell there is a reason he was the head of the department and a well liked member of staff :p:

3. Oh yea, you go work in a secondary school for a week and then get back to me on your third bullet point :rolleyes:


You have been to 8 different schools as a teacher or student?


Also, why are you talking about ****ting in a cave? How does that relate to giving out little presents in a classroom....? OH (you sick git)
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending