Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results

I think there must be a psychological equivalent to the feeling that your kids' sports teams "play to their opponents."

I would not be surprised for research to demonstrate that children perform to the expectations given them, particularly when those expectations are clear and consistent. In fact, most people thrive in environments where they understand the rules, rewards, penalties, and where those structures are evenly and consistently enforced.

The environment you describe doesn't include "ripping people a new one" for spelling errors.

Correcting mistakes is one thing but insulting people making errors is probably harmful not helpful.

I haven't read the article but from personal experience I know this is not correct. Tough teachers without inclination and ability to better the student only makes them worse. As put in by one of the best teachers I had 'A teacher's job is to make student interested in the subject'. Whatever approach makes the student reach to this, would be right.

The implications in this article that strict = effective are flat-out stupid. A teacher does not have to be hardass to encourage children to have high expectations and to be OK with failure.

I think a truly effective teacher, at all levels, will encourage curiosity and creativity in subject-matter. The best way to do this, in my view, is mutual respect.

The teacher's idolised in this article seem to operate through fear, which eventually fades into a semblance of respect over time.

Praise doesn't make you a bad learner, learning in environments that encourage low expectations and stock answers to every situations probably will. Strictness might correlate with high expectations, but it sure as hell isn't the best way of going about it.

That said, I agree with a number of points in the article (some are implied from the provided data):

- Students with higher expectations perform closer to their potential (whether internal or external expectations, though other research suggests that internal motivation is far more important than external).

- There is possibly a formative stage of development where children's expectations are adjusted to their environment. Being surrounded by high expectations will correlate with high expectations with the learners.

- People who aren't afraid to fail will achieve more than those who are.

- Students who are in environments that emphasise strict route learning perform better on tests and memory exercises (spelling bees) than those who don't.

None of that really goes beyond common sense.

I'd really love for education to move beyond success = memorisation and into success = adaptability and understanding. The world rewards autodidacts because a lot of us worked this out on our own.

you are using two different "types of teachers" to judge his argument and construct your argument.

A teacher without inclination and ability to better the students would perform bad even with your approach, which is "whatever approach to make student interested".

I think to read the article in article's spirit, he is talking only about teachers interested and able to "teach". The article's definition of teacher is someone who can teach (make students better) and not someone who is appointed by school and is not interested in students.

Considering this, the question OP is trying to address is : among the various approaches which is the best approach to teach.

I would say, an article containing analysis on data is more informative to me than just making a statement, whatever approach is right.