Join the conversation

I agree totally when you say, "The question of motivation is tough. It's complicated. But we have to get it right." I would also argue that educational theory, if we may call it that, for the past hundred years has not even tried to get it right. It's always been enough to say that "Children have a natural desire to learn", or something similar. There's some truth to that, of course, but a lot of falseness too. It's more of a homily than anything else. There's a lot more to be said.

I've tried to develop some thoughts on motivation in my article "Motivation And The Willingness To Be Taught" on my website. It's at http://www.brianrude.com/mot-wt.htm .

I loved Dan Pink's new book Drive. The message that intrinsic > extrinsic motivation is a sound one, and we would all benefit greatly, if we took the time to understand the wealth of research that is out there. Alfie Kohn's PUNISHED BY REWARDS is another absolutely fantastic read on this topic (Pink references Kohn a number of times)

I am concerned that when you say "But I do worry about what happens when we confuse true motivation with a kind of wish fulfillment: students doing what they want to do when they want to do it," that it will place people in the frame of mind that we are already doing too much motivation 3.0.

If you were to look at the education systems we have, you would be hard pressed to find policies, curriculums and standardized assessments that take motivation 3.0 too far. If anything, we are stuck in the motivation stone age where we continue to believe that high standards = standardization and this must be enforced by rigid, top-down, carrot and stick accountability pillars.

We have a long way to go before we need to worry about taking motivation 3.0 too far, and sounding the alarms now may simply justify the motivation 2.0 pundits and their rhetoric to stay deeply rooted where they have been for so long.

Have you checked out the link Brian provided in the first comment? Looked at his website? I like it. Don't agree with all he says about how coercion is necessary in the classroom, but I like it. :)

I'm agreeing with Joe that NO WAY they're letting kids learn about what they want in schools to the point where concern about kids not having to work because the teacher told them to should even be a glimmer of worry on the horizon.

I do a lot of wish fulfillment in my home teaching (today I have to find out what the difference between "lead" and "iron" would be with the kids and find out more about sharks and how, specifically, they are able to move so fast and attack even though they are large and how do I KNOW that pirates didn't bury treasure in Missouri... maybe it was a really determined pirate who didn't want his treasure found...? Prove that, Mom. You offered no evidence.). I can see where wish fulfillment could take up entire days (weeks! months!) and how it is impractical in a class of 30-odd kids in everyday teaching.

Brian--Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Joe--I understand your concern. Still, I want to be clear that "wish fulfillment" is not, I think, motivation 3.0. It's a misunderstanding of motivation 3.0. I'm also not sure that Dan Pink would have us abandon the principles of motivation 2.0 entirely. He seems to think that we need some carrots and sticks in a motivation 3.0 world, and I would agree--as long as we continue to work on unlocking students' inner drive. Finally, I don't think that schools generally use motivation 3.0, either in its true or corrupt forms.

But I do think it's important to create a strong and compelling vision for motivation 3.0--or any transformational idea--before it comes into practice. Pink has gong a long way in doing that, but--by his own ready admission--the idea will need further development in the schools. It's all too easy to go down the wrong path when we develop such things, so it's good to be aware of the pitfalls.

Mrs. C--There's wish fulfillment and then there's wish fulfillment. Part of our education is the process of deferring wishes and learning the steps--and work--it takes to reach those wishes. The broader culture to which our kids are exposed often works against that process, it seems to me.

Claus,

Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I am concerned about the pep rally culture that I see in schools. Teachers are now supposed to be cheerleaders, telling kids over and over that they can succeed. Kids need encouragement, to be sure. But all this emphasis on "success," regardless of the substance of success, distorts the purposes of education. It should not be all about success. It should be at least partly about the very things to be learned, whether or not they bring success of any kind. A student should be willing, for instance, to struggle with a difficult text because it is interesting, not because success awaits on the other end. There may be no success on the other end (beyond some understanding), and that is just fine.

Diana

Thank you! I'm flattered.

Responding to Diana and others who question "an emphasis on success:" Several years ago, I saw Tom Guskey speak about student motivation, and what he said stuck with me.

Ever watch a kid play Pac-Man? (OK, it's dated, but bear with me.) What makes kids plug quarters into (or walk away from) the Pac-Man machine? It's not the "relevance" or "rich content" of dots gobbling dots. Kids keep playing Pac-Man because they figure out how to go a little further every time. When video gamers get to the top levels, they're highly (even irrationally) motivated to succeed. They're spurred by their earlier small victories--and able to play endlessly to get to the top.

And so it is with selling real estate, perfecting a surgical procedure, winning a civil liabilities case--and learning to read, do quadratic equations or appreciate poetry. Small, genuine successes move us forward. A kid who willingly struggles with a difficult academic challenge does so not because it's intrinsically worthy; he does so because earlier struggles that ended in understanding have led him know that accomplishing the task is both possible and worthwhile. In other words, we teach kids to persevere by providing early experiences where perseverance pays off.

And "understanding" is success, isn't it? In a content-rich curriculum, understanding why the things they're studying *are* worthy is one of our primary goals, no? Even when our students are currently performing at lower levels of personal/productive proficiency?

What I'm curious about--and this is related to Claus's fear that educators will leapfrog into a poorly understood action plan around Motivation 3.0--is why some in the education community resist the idea that student self-concept matters in learning, or that teachers "shouldn't" be considering their students' feelings about their own efficacy, as part of the learning process?

Does keeping students' emotional intelligence in mind make one a Minister of Soft Pedagogical Theory?

Diana and Nancy,

I guess it all depends on our definition of "success." I'm inclined to agree that understanding or even appreciation constitute success, so I can see where Nancy is coming from.

That said, Diana's point strikes a real chord. Many people in education policy speak as if every subject of study were a handmaiden to some external goal. Even the arts seem to have value only insofar as they bump up scores in other areas. But if we get students truly to appreciate the inherent value of what they study--as well as other types of value--then that constitutes success, doesn't it?