In the study explained in the Dweck article, Dweck simply skims over one-third of the subjects, those praised for their performance. Even though she says the results of this group were split, it seemed odd that she would completely leave them out of her analysis.
I think the best times to use rewards are for tasks that might not have high value to the student in the immediate future, but on tasks that will be used long down the road. I think the book mentions spelling words and multiplication tables, as tasks that can be rewarded because later on in development, students will look back and see the value of having used these skills. In easier terms, adults and high school students don’t need an intrinsic love of spelling or simple multiplication to see the real world applications for them.
I think extrinsic forms of motivation can very often be the wrong choice. I strongly agree with Dweck. Praising students for intelligence can be a detriment to their learning. I think the “Self Esteem” movement may have overlooked the fact that children may in fact be able to see through praise, and may have forgotten that they have to instill in students the means to a good result, instead of simply that result. Another form of motivation that seems like it could detrimentally affect a child’s development is the prize to a reading challenge (the one in the book was getting a free pizza for reading a certain amount). I think the intentions of these programs are good, but for a child who doesn’t read the certain amount, it can affect them negatively. As Dweck notes that a short sentence praising a child can have devastating effects on their self-esteem and motivation, think of what effects pressure-filled contests like these throw on those with learning disabilities, or those who are slow readers. It promotes speeding through the process of reading, and as students did in the Dweck article, lying about results.
You make a great point. When the students have no goal or interest related to the activity, you can definitely give them one, and that seems reasonable. A lot of the work we all do happens only because we are FORCED to, but a lot of our best work happens in required classes. We probably wouldn't accomplish some of those things if we were entirely interest driven.
ReplyDeleteYou create a nice distinction, between valuing the result (the grade, the product, etc) and valuing the means (the learning process, mistakes and revisions). Encouraging the process rather than the result is a way you can change the culture of your own classroom.
Students will almost always do the minimum amount necessary to get the reward (they are intelligent and can see that's the most efficient way!), so another post describes how some students will cheat and copy a description of the book from somewhere to appear that they've read it....You can only try to create situations that value and assess the process instead of that end state.
Yes, it's problematic when the situation rewards SPEED or a particular way of doing things. The only thing you can do is be conscious of why particular students might be doing better than others, and if your assignments are equitable to all (we will talk about equity in a few weeks!) That includes describing things in a way that all students can understand, and making it so that students have reasonable time and resources to complete the task.... And if you find a problem in your own teaching that creates inequity, you should change it.