We claim we want to nurture self-directed learners and hope that the use of technology and other innovative educational practices will engage our digital natives. We also know it is critical that our students develop resiliency, self-regulation, and other social emotional competencies in addition to academic behaviors for success such as study skills, self-advocacy, and note taking. While I have no doubt that providing engaging and thoughtful academic environments though the use of inquiry, literature and other engaging practices and using technology tools to foster collaboration and problem solving will result in improved outcomes for students I increasingly hear teacher concerns with student ‘motivation’. I believe that if we have more than 50% of our teachers claiming that more than 50% of out students are not motivated we have a big problem and need to engage in the intellectual inquiry necessary to learn how to improve this situation. Maybe it’s not 50%. If not, what would be the percent at which we should be concerned? Is this truly better or worse than 10 or 20 years ago? Can we expect it to be better or worse now?
One of my tasks this past couple of months has been to inventory what we are currently providing for ‘curriculum’ in the areas listed above. For the most part this is done and we are beginning to look at expanding and improving in some critical areas such as study skills/academic behaviors in grades 3-8. In order to do this well I have revisited some of the research that was very important to me as I raised my own children; that is the research surrounding the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. I read and hear varying understandings of this research and debate so I chose to go back to some large meta-analyses in order to learn for myself. I can send the articles to anyone interested.
As I do this, some very frightening thoughts and questions lurk at the corner of my consciousness and keep me awake at night.
~ I have no doubt we need articulated curriculum, both for all students and for students who need additional time and opportunity to develop social and emotional skills. However, we also know that the skills or dispositions we are describing are nurtured and developed over time through interaction with responsive and informed adults.
~ Whether we like the idea of this or not, MANY of the practices we engage in in schools are used to somehow or other modify or shape behaviors. We provide feedback on a minute-by-minute basis in a myriad of conscious and unconscious ways. We desire to shape and develop appropriate behaviors both for our own sanity, and because we believe the behaviors we want students to demonstrate are ultimately beneficial to them.
~ What if we are unwittingly engaging in well-intentioned practices that are at best not supporting the development of a child at any given level, or worse, are actually detrimental to their needs at any given stage of development?
~ What if, though encouraging and focusing on the short-term goal of compliance and control we are actually hurting the development of competence and autonomy.
For instance:
1. Should we reward an eight-year-old child with a 'prize' for being kind to another child?
2. How do we truly support 16-year-old student council members to learn leadership skills? Are we prepared to support the mistake they will make as they learn or do we actually want them to act as ‘puppets’ for adults attempting to control the environment? This has been a burning question since my oldest daughter was a student ‘leader’.
1. Should we reward an eight-year-old child with a 'prize' for being kind to another child?
2. How do we truly support 16-year-old student council members to learn leadership skills? Are we prepared to support the mistake they will make as they learn or do we actually want them to act as ‘puppets’ for adults attempting to control the environment? This has been a burning question since my oldest daughter was a student ‘leader’.
I believe we need to be prepared to closely examine our Pre-K – 12 systems to ensure we are not unknowingly using practices that are actually detrimental to the long-term impact we want to have. Plugging in ‘curriculum’ in 8th grade to artificially teach something that could and should be environmentally nurtured in 2nd and 3rd grade seems like a sad waste of time and will it even be successful when provided after the developmental 'window'? Is there a developmental window for this learning?
I am convinced we cannot move forward unless we have courageous conversations that should involve, at very least, revisiting Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages and Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development along with the research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Maybe with THIS central to our educational efforts will we improve academic outcomes.
