Love and respect for young people needs to be the “common core” of the equation, not fixed standards put together to rank and sort learners into rigid categories, to decide who has passed and who has failed.
In order for educational settings to be successful they need to be aligned with how children naturally learn. Children’s innate curiosity, enthusiasm, creativity, playfulness, individuality, …
Source: How Children Naturally Learn
By: Diane Kashin, Ed.D, RECE. To begin with I would like to wish all the followers and readers of this blog a very HAPPY NEW YEAR! A new year is the time for reflection and resolutions. For me, 201…
Source: What about the What? Finding the Deeper Meaning in Pedagogical Documentation
I love this quote. Read Susan Ochshorn’s review of Renee Dinnerstein’s book.
Maja Wilson and Alfie Kohn have found themselves in a problematic minority during the accountability era dedicated to standards, high-stakes testing, and the ever-present rubric. Rubrics, they argu…
“The best schools keep their eye on the prize—the kids—not just whether they are pleasing higher civil authorities. They see the job of adults as one of nurturing intelligence and empathy, op…
For nearly half a century, research has raised troubling questions about the practice of dangling rewards in front of people to get them to do what we want. It doesn’t matter whether the people in question are male or female, children or adults. It doesn’t matter whether the rewards are stickers, food, grades, or money. It doesn’t matter whether the goal is to get them to work harder, learn better, act nicely, or lose weight. What the studies keep telling us is that rewards, like punishments, tend not only to be ineffective — particularly over the long haul — but often to undermine the very thing we’re trying to promote.
Since I reviewed the first wave of research on the counterproductive effects of rewards, new studies have confirmed and extended the original findings. By now, with the exception of economists and a diehard group of orthodox behaviorists (who have restyled themselves “behavior analysts”), most social scientists acknowledge that incentives tend to backfire. Moreover, the problem isn’t limited to particular kinds of incentives or ways of using them. The trouble is inherent to the very idea of incentives. Extrinsic motivators (rewards) tend to reduce intrinsic motivation (people’s interest in, or commitment to, what they’re doing).
Alas, too many parents, teachers, and managers persist in treating people like pets, offering the equivalent of a doggie biscuit to children, students, and employees in an effort to get them to jump through hoops. (Rewards are tools used by people with more power on those with less.) The more familiar you are with the mountain of research on this topic, the more depressed you’ll be to find, for example, that schools continue to rely on Skinnerian programs such as PBIS, Class Dojo, Accelerated Reader, and the like. It’s not just that they’re manipulative, or even that they’re ultimately unsuccessful. It’s that they’re actively harmful.
The early research on rewards investigated some intriguing subsidiary questions that stemmed from the central finding. To wit: What if the reward is really large and luscious? (That tends to compound the damage to intrinsic motivation.) Are rewards damaging mostly because they distract people from the task? (Apparently not, because other distractors don’t have the same negative effects.) What about verbal rewards? (Praise can be just as controlling and destructive as tangible rewards.) Which is worse, giving people a set reward for doing a task or making the reward contingent on how well they do it? (The latter, by a long shot.)[1]
And here’s one of my favorite spin-off questions: If saying “Do this, and you’ll get that” makes people less interested in the “this,” might it also make them more interested in the “that”? The late educational psychologist John Nicholls once quipped that the predictable result of “Book It!” — Pizza Hut’s edible reward-for-reading program — is to produce “a lot of fat kids who don’t like to read.” Too true: Children have been led to see reading not as something desirable in its own right, but as a means to an end, something you have to slog through to get the pepperoni payoff. But might the program also have the effect of enhancing the appeal of pizza just by virtue of framing it as a reward?
This was dubbed the “bonus effect” by a couple of researchers at the University of Colorado who tested the idea in four studies with kids of different ages.[2] They found limited support for the idea that an activity comes to seem more desirable to children who were allowed to engage in it as a reward: It depended on their age and on how familiar they already were with that activity. Two experiments by other researchers — which were focused mostly on whether rewards reduced interest in the target activity — also happened to look at what happened to interest in the reward itself. They found no effect.
Which brings us to what, as far as I know, is the first attempt to revisit this phenomenon in a long time. In a series of seven studies published just this month[3] — exactly 30 years after the same journal featured the Colorado researchers’ findings — two psychologists at Northwestern University’s School of Management used adults as subjects and money as the reward (in six of the seven experiments).
What they found was both straightforward and remarkably consistent: When people are promised a monetary reward for doing a task well, the primary outcome is that they get more excited about money. This happens even when they don’t meet the standard for getting paid. And when a reward other than money is used — raffle tickets for a gift box, in this case — the effect is the same: more enthusiasm about what was used as an incentive.
The researchers also discovered that financial rewards for good performance boosted interest in money more than financial rewards just for participating in the experiment. The more closely a reward is conditioned on how well one has done something, the more that people come to desire the reward and, as earlier research has shown, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward. One of the new studies proved this was true not only in laboratory simulations but also in a real workplace: Monitoring salespeople at a car dealership convinced the researchers that people subjected to performance-based pay “may become more materialistic and less charitable over time.”
Other research has shown that rewards not only reduce people’s interest in what they’re doing but also adversely affect the quality of their performance. When we’re led to focus on getting an A, a bonus, or some other payoff for doing well, we tend to do more poorly on the task — a finding that holds true regardless of age, type of reward, or what we we’re doing (although rewards’ destructive effect on performance is most pronounced for tasks that require creativity or sophisticated problem solving). It’s long been assumed that quality drops because interest drops. But the Northwestern researchers speculated that quality may also suffer from the enhanced interest in, and attention to, the grade or money being dangled in front of people.
The most obvious practical significance of this new research concerns pay-for-performance schemes in the workplace, including bonuses and merit pay. Earlier studies had already shown that compensating people this way makes them less excited about the work they do every day. But it also apparently creates a greater focus on money (compared to other goals and values). And the studies may also be relevant to education. If we try to justify certain instructional approaches by saying they’ll raise test scores, we’re devaluing those approaches while simultaneously elevating the importance of test scores. The same is true of education research that uses test results as the dependent variable.
Also, as I argued not long ago, the same double whammy applies when education itself is justified in economic terms: Students’ engagement declines and their materialistic values — already a dominant feature of our acquisitive culture — may rise. At one stroke we’re teaching them to hate learning and to love money.
The more general conclusion from the new research might be summarized as follows: If the question is “Do rewards motivate people?” the answer is “Sure — they motivate people to get rewards.”
______________________________________________________________
NOTES
1. I discuss, and provide citations to, all of this research in my book Punished by Rewards (Houghton Mifflin, rev. ed. 1992).
2. Ann K. Boggiano and Deborah S. Main, “Enhancing Children’s Interest in Activities Used as Rewards: The Bonus Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986): 1116-26.
3. Julia D. Hur and Loran F. Nordgren, “Paying for Performance: Performance Incentives Increase Desire for the Reward Object,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111 (2016): 301-16.
And there was the day Tyler asked me if he could ‘do a play’. Sure, I’ll just go and get my writing book and a pen. Tyler fetched a large sheet of drawing paper, and the red, blue, green, black, a…
Source: A 68-word story
This morning I chatted with a dad whose 3-year-old child was about to board a school bus to go to his preschool in a public school district. The little boy had never set eyes on his new teacher, nor had the parents.
Why would a school think this is okay? First of all, this little boy had the advantage of having taken the bus to the same school for the summer (not the same teacher however). So that helped. But what about other children, who have never been on a bus? What about the teacher and parents?
As a teacher, I felt that meeting and getting to know parents was a crucial part of my practice and benefited the children immeasurably. I wanted to see parents each day, to chat with them, to share a story about something their child discovered or created. I was also available to parents so that they could keep me posted on any concerns or about happy family news. As a parent of a preschooler and kindergartner, I wanted to know the teacher, be familiar with the classroom, the school’s philosophy and to meet other parents. We were lucky to find a preschool that made a point of embracing parents and fostering strong relationships among children, families and staff. The children knew that the teachers and families were “friends.”
I understand that parents are working and cannot always be at the school for pick up, but what sort of culture is it that says 3-year-old children are “on their own” and relationships are not important? Have we completely lost sight of how young these children are and how important the family is? I just feel sad.
In contrast, an article about Finland.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/how-finland-starts-the-school-year/497306/
Reporting in Education Week, Evie Blad explains: Having a growth mindset may help buffer students from low-income families from the effects of poverty on academic achievement, researchers found in …
Source: Failing Still to Address Poverty Directly: Growth Mindset as Deficit Ideology
Ordinarily I avoid the use of the auxiliary verb “should.” Somehow, during a stream of consciousness moment, I fell into this. Perhaps it’s a chant or a slam poetry piece.
School – It Should Not Be
It should not be that
Children are made to feel embarrassed, humiliated, or shamed.
It should not be that
Children fear making mistakes.
It should not be that
Children have little time to talk and move.
It should not be that
Children sit for long periods of time.
It should not be that
Children get only tiny bits of outdoor time in nature (if at all).
It should not be that
Children learn to respond, robot-like, to loud buzzers.
It should not be that
Children are deprived of art and music.
It should not be that
Children are fed unhealthy, unappetizing food.
It should not be that
Children eat their meals in a hurry or in silence.
It should not be that
Children are seen as receivers and not sharers of information.
It should not be that
Children’s ideas are not taken seriously.
It should not be that
Children are treated like numbers, rather than young human beings.
It should not be that
Children feel hungry, tired and restless.
It should not be that
Children are made to feel incompetent.
It should not be that
Children are told that learning must be hard.
It should not be that
Children are isolated or ignored.
It should not be that
Children spend hours preparing for tests.
It should not be that
Children are given standardized tests.
It should not be that
Children are required to do homework.
It should not be that
Children are trained to learn in unnatural ways.
It should not be that
Children’s play is removed from learning.
It should not be that
Children sit in crowded, cluttered, dilapidated classrooms.
It should not be that
Children’s days are removed from their lives and community.
It should not be that
Children must “cover their answers.”
It should not be that
Children compete with their classmates.
School – It Should Be
It should be that
Children feel worthy, secure and safe.
It should be that
Children see mistakes as learning opportunities.
It should be that
Children spend most of their day involved in conversations as they create, solve problems, and inquire.
It should be that
Children move about their classroom, freely and intentionally.
It should be that
Children spend long periods outdoors in nature.
It should be that
Children experience human voices, quiet and nature sounds throughout their day.
It should be that
Children experience music and art every day.
It should be that
Children eat nutritious, delicious food.
It should be that
Children’s meal times are relaxed and are opportunities for them to be together.
It should be that
Children openly share their ideas.
It should be that
Children’s ideas are taken seriously.
It should be that
Children’s health, both emotional and physical, is always considered.
It should be that
Children’s needs are what drive schedules and routines.
It should be that
Children understand that learning is a life-long process.
It should be that
Children love learning and see its value to their lives.
It should be that
Children feel that they belong and are trusted.
It should be that
Children spend hours digging deep into what interests them.
It should be that
Children and teachers, together, assess their learning.
It should be that
Children spend time at home with family and at play.
It should be that
Children’s learning is geared to the way they learn naturally.
It should be that
Children play—a lot.
It should be that
Children experience comfortable, beautiful classroom environments.
It should be that
Children experience their community and their lives as part of their every day curriculum.
It should be that
Children help each other in sharing information and ideas—and answers.
It should be that
Children view each other as friends, helpers, and partners in learning.
