Intrinsic Motivation by Efficacy for Student Excellence
Wide Eyed in Wonder
potential in life? Students (and their parents) are counting on us to
instruct and prepare their students. Yet, they have a lot of
distractions in an open classroom and in the process of human
development. How do we keep them motivated? Often, people use all
sorts of reinforcement to extrinsically motivate the students to
succeed, and this is important. However, I think we'd all rather have
students that are self motivated (instriscally) to do the
curriculum. One of the keys of this motivation is student efficacy,
which is basically where the students feel good about themselves and
translate that into motivation to study and learn.
Now, there are two theories about how to reach student efficacy and
student potential. One says to praise the students and help them to
be fulfilled as a person. Once they reach that feeling of
fulfillment, they will want to do studies (the theory suggests).
Thus, the goal of the teacher is to give them less standards and more
praise. I think there is a few major problems with this philosophy.
First, students follow the modeling of their teacher. If their
teacher is presenting a low evaluation of the need for academics, the
student may be likewise motivated to reject academics, even if
properly praised. Second, Education theorists would have you believe
that reinforcement creates behavior. If the student is praised in the
middle of disruption and rebellion, you have just reinforce that
misbehavior...this is how class clowns and bullies are born. Finally,
if the student is not pushed to learn, their lack of knowledge will
increase. As they go up in the grades and find more and more things
they do not understand (due to a poor initial base), their efficacy
will decline and their self-esteem (and their future) will face a
worse harm than if they were pushed from the start.
So, I think the only path to efficacy and student success would seem
to be the second view of how to create efficacy. You push the
students (against their will) to learn and grow (change is always
difficult but often beneficial). They may dislike you, but they gain
more skills and knowledge, making their schoolwork easier and
preparing them for future grades. Meanwhile, their good grades and
ability makes them feel good about themselves, and student efficacy
and intrinsic motivation (for student excellence) is born.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
One note...when I said, "against their will," I meant against their
will at the time. You can make no one do anything against their will,
in reality. Thus, we must change their will, which is kinda what this
whole post is about. So, I will rephrase. I mean that we push them
to CHANGE their will through BOTH positive and NEGATIVE reinforcement
and punishment.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>What are we here for, if not to help students reach their greatest
>potential in life?
Define "greatest potential". I know what I mean by the phrase, but
from you, I expect that it means something else entirely.
>Students (and their parents) are counting on us to instruct and prepare their students.
"Prepare them" ***for what***? Again, from you, I expect that concept
is something else entirely.
The following is a lot of muddled thinking stemming from muddled
understanding and muddled assumptions.
>... One of the keys of this motivation is student efficacy,
>which is basically where the students feel good about themselves and
>translate that into motivation to study and learn.
>
>Now, there are two theories about how to reach student efficacy and
>student potential. One says to praise the students and help them to
>be fulfilled as a person. Once they reach that feeling of
>fulfillment, they will want to do studies (the theory suggests).
I suspect that you are missing something from that "theory".
>Thus, the goal of the teacher is to give them less standards and more
>praise.
That does not follow. The means to the goal is to give them more
praise. And of course not just any praise, but praise for doing the
sorts of things that lead to the desired goal.
>I think there is a few major problems with this philosophy.
The problems, as usual, are with your misunderstanding of the
philosophy.
>First, students follow the modeling of their teacher.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
>If their teacher is presenting a low evaluation of the need for academics, the
>student may be likewise motivated to reject academics, even if
>properly praised.
That would be true. But its relevance presumes that there are
teachers that "present a low evaluation of the need for academics".
>Second, Education theorists would have you believe that reinforcement creates behavior.
One particular kind of theorist, called a "behaviorist" promote that
idea. Not all education theorists are behaviorists.
>If the student is praised in the middle of disruption and rebellion,
Praised for ***what***? If an authority praises them for disrupting
and rebelling, then a behaviorist would expect that to promote
disruption and rebellion. If the praise is for persisting in academic
endeavor while others are disruptive, then that would presumably
promote more such persistence.
>you have just reinforce that misbehavior...this is how class clowns and bullies are born.
Nonsense. Class clowns and bullies are neither motivated nor deterred
by teacher praise. They are generally seeking *peer* esteem, and
couldn't give a damn what the teacher thinks if they get that esteem.
>Finally, if the student is not pushed to learn, their lack of knowledge will
>increase.
That does not follow. If effort depends on their motivation, as you
argued. If they have the motivation, they need no push. You are
assuming that "push" will always lead to motivation, and that is no
more true than that anything else will lead to motivation.
Meanwhile, you have presented no concept as to how to "push" a
student, in contrast to the praise that you apparently misunderstand
(which of course is intended to push them as well).
>As they go up in the grades and find more and more things
>they do not understand (due to a poor initial base),
You are assuming a poor initial base, which is something outside the
control of the teacher. Part of the teacher's job is to remedy
weakness in the student's initial base.
>their efficacy will decline and their self-esteem (and their future) will face a
>worse harm than if they were pushed from the start.
It might or it might not. You've made and muddled too many
assumptions to have this claim be anything meaningful.
>So, I think the only path to efficacy and student success would seem
>to be the second view of how to create efficacy. You push the
>students (against their will) to learn and grow (change is always
>difficult but often beneficial).
And how do you "push them"?
I've been pushing you for years to go and actually learn something
before making an ass of yourself, and it doesn't seem to have done any
good. But then I am not a teacher (for which I and the students I
don't have are probably thankful).
>They may dislike you, but they gain more skills and knowledge,
That does not follow. You are assuming that the kids respond to your
push by gaining skills and knowledge. Some kids will respond simply
by pushing back. Others will simply ignore you.
>making their schoolwork easier
If they don't like it and are fighting you, it won't be easier.
>and preparing them for future grades. Meanwhile, their good grades and
>ability makes them feel good about themselves,
Whose says that they have good grades or ability?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> to be the second view of how to create efficacy. You push the
>> students (against their will) to learn and grow (change is always
>
>One note...when I said, "against their will," I meant against their
>will at the time. You can make no one do anything against their will,
>in reality. Thus, we must change their will, which is kinda what this
>whole post is about. So, I will rephrase. I mean that we push them
>to CHANGE their will through BOTH positive and NEGATIVE reinforcement
>and punishment.
I would suggest you try giving specific examples of a situation, and
what you think is the wrong approach, and what you think is the
correct approach in that specific situation.
lojbab
stevericks
A great deal of data coming out about the "new" workforce is that they have
grown up with an emphasis on making them feel better about themselves but
have little experience in dealing with the real world. Parents and teachers
targeted that they have positive experiences and shielded them from not so
positive ones. Now many have trouble coping in the work environment
(personal observation and a number of recently released articles concerning
attributes of different generations).
Dealing with the new generation is a bit different than in the past. When
they fail, you can't just tell them they screwed up and to fix it. Their
psyches' don't seem to be able to handle that. The boss almost has to be
their personal trainer.
On the other side, I do agree with you that we need to find ways to help
students be successful. The old saying that nothing succeeds like success
is true. People "turn on" to things they feel successful with and avoid
those where they don't.
I think all educators will agree with you that intrinsic motivation is far
better than extrinsic. In reality, motivation comes from within, not from
the outside. All teachers can do is create situations. Motivation is
internal to the person.
I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by efficacy.
Steve
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b57d85f3-1dc0-43f6...@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Not necessarily agreeing with what you are saying...
> A great deal of data coming out about the "new" workforce is that they have
> grown up with an emphasis on making them feel better about themselves but
> have little experience in dealing with the real world. Parents and teachers
> targeted that they have positive experiences and shielded them from not so
> positive ones. Now many have trouble coping in the work environment
> (personal observation and a number of recently released articles concerning
> attributes of different generations).
Indeed. Preparation for the real world is essential. As I said, we
must give them skills and knowledged, not just a pat on the back.
>
> Dealing with the new generation is a bit different than in the past. When
> they fail, you can't just tell them they screwed up and to fix it. Their
> psyches' don't seem to be able to handle that. The boss almost has to be
> their personal trainer.
>
Or...a coach....mentor...guide. However, one must remember that these
kids are kids and that there are limitations by development level.
That doesn't excuse them from working at their potential, though.
> On the other side, I do agree with you that we need to find ways to help
> students be successful. The old saying that nothing succeeds like success
> is true. People "turn on" to things they feel successful with and avoid
> those where they don't.
>
> I think all educators will agree with you that intrinsic motivation is far
> better than extrinsic. In reality, motivation comes from within, not from
> the outside. All teachers can do is create situations. Motivation is
> internal to the person.
>
> I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by efficacy.
> Steve
>
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b57d85f3-1dc0-43f6...@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
> What are we here for, if not to help students reach their greatest
> potential in life?
"We" who? - teachers? administrators? school board?
> Students (and their parents) are counting on us to
> instruct and prepare their students.
"instruct and prepare" for what? I think this is sort of the root of
most of the 'problems' in public education - the 'goals' tend to be a
bit undefined and vague.
> Yet, they have a lot of
> distractions in an open classroom and in the process of human
> development.
Human development tends to have a lot of distractions - onset of puberty
being one.
> How do we keep them motivated? Often, people use all
> sorts of reinforcement to extrinsically motivate the students to
> succeed, and this is important. However, I think we'd all rather have
> students that are self motivated (instriscally) to do the
> curriculum. One of the keys of this motivation is student efficacy,
> which is basically where the students feel good about themselves and
> translate that into motivation to study and learn.
Motivation isn't just something that happens in the classroom - there
are all sorts of areas outside of school that have some element of
motivation. Personally, I don't think the problem is motivation. It's
more a problem of marketing - rather than motivation. As a teacher, I
always got the impression that most of my "unmotivated" students were
questioning "What's in it for me?". My most "motivated" students tended
to be ones that were envisioning some "goal".
> Now, there are two theories about how to reach student efficacy and
> student potential.
And I bet they've been around for decades. What they need to do is dump
those theories and hire some marketing people.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
That would be extrinsic motivation. Don't you want students that were
self-motivated? That is what this post is all about. We don't want
to deceive them into doing something they will hate but introduce them
into a love for learning that will (itself) drive them forward to
success.
Read the rest of my post for ideas on that.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
And why discount that in favor for motivation that apparently isn't
working? I'm not suggesting giving the students a cookie - just selling
them on the idea that there is some 'value' in going through the process
that we call "education". Kids are marketed to pretty much all the time
- outside of the classroom. A good (IMO) documentary on the subject is;
"The Merchants of Cool"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/
I think that if some effort along those lines was made toward marketing
getting a good education - some of these unmotivated kids might actually
put in some effort.
> Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
> That is what this post is all about. We don't want
> to deceive them into doing something they will hate but introduce them
> into a love for learning that will (itself) drive them forward to
> success.
What so different about the love of "learning" and the love of polka
music? or the love of "fast food"? Not everybody is going to "love" the
same things, nor to the same degree - in fact some people might actually
can't stand some things. But given some effort on the part of the right
marketing campaign - people might come around to liking something that
the previously didn't. I recently listened to a podcast of a talk that
mentioned how it took Herman Miller a long time to get anyone interested
in his Aeron office chair, people seemed to hate it initially - but
eventually people came around to liking it, and it has even became one
of the most popular chairs on the market today.
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html
One might think that if someone could get people to change their minds
about a chair - that maybe some of the same kind of efforts might make
students change their minds about "education".
> Read the rest of my post for ideas on that.
Why? What's my motivation to do something like that?
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Really? No one is intrinsically motivated? Getting people to love
learning has NO impact on their future? You DO realize that, at this
point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
>
> > Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>
> Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
> ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
> Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
You didn't answer the question.
>
> > That is what this post is all about. We don't want
>
> > to deceive them into doing something they will hate but introduce them
> > into a love for learning that will (itself) drive them forward to
> > success.
>
> What so different about the love of "learning" and the love of polka
> music? or the love of "fast food"? Not everybody is going to "love" the
> same things, nor to the same degree - in fact some people might actually
> can't stand some things. But given some effort on the part of the right
> marketing campaign - people might come around to liking something that
> the previously didn't. I recently listened to a podcast of a talk that
> mentioned how it took Herman Miller a long time to get anyone interested
> in his Aeron office chair, people seemed to hate it initially - but
> eventually people came around to liking it, and it has even became one
> of the most popular chairs on the market today.
>
> http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html
>
> One might think that if someone could get people to change their minds
> about a chair - that maybe some of the same kind of efforts might make
> students change their minds about "education".
>
> > Read the rest of my post for ideas on that.
>
> Why? What's my motivation to do something like that?
>
> Martin
>
Exactly. I gave you the extrinsic reason to read it in the subject
line. You are choosing to intrinsically reject it. If education is
all about extrinsic motivation, you would've read the rest to see if I
could help you with student excellence. You chose not to read it,
though, out of ....which one...intrinsic or extrinsic reasons?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
Sure they are - for whatever it is that they 'value' or interests them.
Problem is - getting kids 'motivated' intrinsically for learning
whatever they are suppose to be learning in public education.
>Getting people to love
> learning has NO impact on their future?
Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
particular subject/topic/activity.
I had a couple students last year who might have been poster children
for not "loving learning", yet these same students were outside
afterschool everyday working on learning new tricks with their
skateboards. My guess is if you looked at most people long and hard
enough - you would find something that they 'loved' learning about. And
this doesn't necessarily go for children - most adults I know have
something that interests them enough to continually learn about it.
Problem is - getting them to learn something that really doesn't
interest them - and which in all likelihood has no relevance to them at
this particular point in their lives. Keep in mind - to most kids, the
'future' is later on that same day, or at most maybe sometime next week.
> You DO realize that, at this
> point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
> Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
Really? Wow! imagine that (sort of picturing the cell phone commercials
where the huge group of people who run the 'network' are following
someone around). Up until this past summer I was a teacher, and had
taught eleven years. All during that time I've heard/read about the
problem of motivating students - and most of what I read was written
many years before I started teaching - so pardon me for imaging that if
this continues to be a problem year after year after year - that just
maybe - you and the industry might just be barking up the wrong tree.
Would it really hurt to consider other alternative methods of doing things?
>
>>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>>
>>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
>>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
>>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>
>
> You didn't answer the question.
What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
>> > That is what this post is all about. We don't want
>>
>>
>>>to deceive them into doing something they will hate but introduce them
>>>into a love for learning that will (itself) drive them forward to
>>>success.
>>
>>What so different about the love of "learning" and the love of polka
>>music? or the love of "fast food"? Not everybody is going to "love" the
>>same things, nor to the same degree - in fact some people might actually
>>can't stand some things. But given some effort on the part of the right
>>marketing campaign - people might come around to liking something that
>>the previously didn't. I recently listened to a podcast of a talk that
>>mentioned how it took Herman Miller a long time to get anyone interested
>>in his Aeron office chair, people seemed to hate it initially - but
>>eventually people came around to liking it, and it has even became one
>>of the most popular chairs on the market today.
>>
>>http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html
>>
>>One might think that if someone could get people to change their minds
>>about a chair - that maybe some of the same kind of efforts might make
>>students change their minds about "education".
>>
>>
>>>Read the rest of my post for ideas on that.
>>
>>Why? What's my motivation to do something like that?
>>
>>Martin
>>
>
>
> Exactly. I gave you the extrinsic reason to read it in the subject
> line. You are choosing to intrinsically reject it.
Actually, I'm just being obstinate - much the same as many of the high
school students I use to teach.
> If education is
> all about extrinsic motivation, you would've read the rest to see if I
> could help you with student excellence. You chose not to read it,
> though, out of ....which one...intrinsic or extrinsic reasons?
When someone goes to a store an buys something that they actually don't
need - say a video or a new pair of pants - are they doing it for
intrinsic or extrinsic reasons? Kids see a new commercial for some toy
or product (say breakfast cereal) and bug their parents into getting it
for them - the idea of the product might be extrinsic, but I would say
that the kids motivation to acquire one for themselves is intrinsic.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Do you even KNOW what intrinsic motivation is...I'm doubting that you
do. Intrinsic motivation means the kids motivate themselves.
"getting kids motivated" as you said, is EXtrinsic motivation.
>
> >Getting people to love
> > learning has NO impact on their future?
>
> Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
> I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
> majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
> birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
> it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
> them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
> particular subject/topic/activity.
>
People DO learn their whole life. Now, answer me this...do they spend
more time and effort learning what they were interested in...or what
they were forced to endure?
> I had a couple students last year who might have been poster children
> for not "loving learning", yet these same students were outside
> afterschool everyday working on learning new tricks with their
> skateboards. My guess is if you looked at most people long and hard
> enough - you would find something that they 'loved' learning about. And
> this doesn't necessarily go for children - most adults I know have
> something that interests them enough to continually learn about it.
>
> Problem is - getting them to learn something that really doesn't
> interest them - and which in all likelihood has no relevance to them at
> this particular point in their lives. Keep in mind - to most kids, the
> 'future' is later on that same day, or at most maybe sometime next week.
>
"interest them" - exactly...that interest is intrinsic
motivation...now, YOU are making my point.
> > You DO realize that, at this
> > point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
> > Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
>
> Really? Wow! imagine that (sort of picturing the cell phone commercials
> where the huge group of people who run the 'network' are following
> someone around). Up until this past summer I was a teacher, and had
> taught eleven years. All during that time I've heard/read about the
> problem of motivating students - and most of what I read was written
> many years before I started teaching - so pardon me for imaging that if
> this continues to be a problem year after year after year - that just
> maybe - you and the industry might just be barking up the wrong tree.
>
And, in all that time, you never learned what Intrinsic motivation
was...just how many inservice days (or teacher's conference days...or
education publication reading) did you do...any?
>
> >>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>
> >>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
> >>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
> >>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>
> > You didn't answer the question.
>
> What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
> long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
> teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
This is contradictory to your earlier words, where you claimed the
problem lay in getting the kids motivated or interested in what they
are learning.
Lucky I choose to reply to the obstinate replier, then...right?
> > If education is
> > all about extrinsic motivation, you would've read the rest to see if I
> > could help you with student excellence. You chose not to read it,
> > though, out of ....which one...intrinsic or extrinsic reasons?
>
> When someone goes to a store an buys something that they actually don't
> need - say a video or a new pair of pants - are they doing it for
> intrinsic or extrinsic reasons? Kids see a new commercial for some toy
> or product (say breakfast cereal) and bug their parents into getting it
> for them - the idea of the product might be extrinsic, but I would say
> that the kids motivation to acquire one for themselves is intrinsic.
>
You didn't answer the question. Which motivation causes you to not
read it?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>> > Really? No one is intrinsically motivated?
>>
>> Sure they are - for whatever it is that they 'value' or interests them.
>> Problem is - getting kids 'motivated' intrinsically for learning
>> whatever they are suppose to be learning in public education.
>
>Do you even KNOW what intrinsic motivation is...I'm doubting that you
>do. Intrinsic motivation means the kids motivate themselves.
>"getting kids motivated" as you said, is EXtrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is by definition not under any external control,
and therefore irrelevant to any decision making about public school
policy. After all, if the policy of teacher or school or system could
affect the motivation, then it would be external motivation.
>> >Getting people to love
>> > learning has NO impact on their future?
>>
>> Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
>> I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
>> majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
>> birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
>> it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
>> them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
>> particular subject/topic/activity.
>
>People DO learn their whole life. Now, answer me this...do they spend
>more time and effort learning what they were interested in...or what
>they were forced to endure?
It doesn't matter. The public school system is required to teach the
state-approved curriculum, not what the student is self-motivated to
learn.
>> Problem is - getting them to learn something that really doesn't
>> interest them - and which in all likelihood has no relevance to them at
>> this particular point in their lives. Keep in mind - to most kids, the
>> 'future' is later on that same day, or at most maybe sometime next week.
>
>"interest them" - exactly...that interest is intrinsic
>motivation...now, YOU are making my point.
You have no point.
>> >>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>>
>> >>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
>> >>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
>> >>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>>
>> > You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
>> long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
>> teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
>
>This is contradictory to your earlier words, where you claimed the
>problem lay in getting the kids motivated or interested in what they
>are learning.
It is not contradictory. If they are internally motivated, something
entirely outside the teacher's control, then they will make the
effort. If they are externally motivated, then they will make the
effort. "It does not matter what their motivation is". That is,
**if** they have motivation.
If they are motivated, then there is no problem. If they need to be
given some form of external motivation, then providing that external
motivation is a problem. So **if** there is a problem, it is one of
providing external motivation.
lojbab
Rowley
<snippage>
>>
>>>Really? No one is intrinsically motivated?
>>
>>Sure they are - for whatever it is that they 'value' or interests them.
>>Problem is - getting kids 'motivated' intrinsically for learning
>>whatever they are suppose to be learning in public education.
>
>
> Do you even KNOW what intrinsic motivation is...I'm doubting that you
> do. Intrinsic motivation means the kids motivate themselves.
> "getting kids motivated" as you said, is EXtrinsic motivation.
Sure I know what it means - leastwise to me, what you think it is might
not be the same.
Looking at Wikipedia, the one example that I feel that matches what
we're discussing is;
"Intrinsic motivation is.... when students are....
* Are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to
achieve good grades"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
My point is that "we" (someone) needs to get the kids to the point where
they are "interested" in a topic enough to master it. Basically sell the
idea to them that what we are attempting to teach them is worth their
effort to learn.
>>>Getting people to love
>>>learning has NO impact on their future?
>>
>>Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
>>I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
>> majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
>>birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
>>it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
>>them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
>>particular subject/topic/activity.
>>
>
>
> People DO learn their whole life. Now, answer me this...do they spend
> more time and effort learning what they were interested in...or what
> they were forced to endure?
Pretty vague questions - depends on the 'why'. Why are they trying to
learn something that they are being forced to endure? I've been forced
to endure many a professional development sessions, where I had to learn
some thing or another - 'why' did I do that? Basically cuz, thats what
my boss wanted me to do. I would wager, that as an adult - I've probably
put in about the same amount of time and effort into learning stuff that
I wanted as I have stuff that I needed to.
Question is - what makes some stuff something that I want to spend time
and effort learning and the other stuff not? And can someone be "sold"
on the idea of liking to learn something that they might not normally?
I think they can.
>>I had a couple students last year who might have been poster children
>>for not "loving learning", yet these same students were outside
>>afterschool everyday working on learning new tricks with their
>>skateboards. My guess is if you looked at most people long and hard
>>enough - you would find something that they 'loved' learning about. And
>>this doesn't necessarily go for children - most adults I know have
>>something that interests them enough to continually learn about it.
>>
>>Problem is - getting them to learn something that really doesn't
>>interest them - and which in all likelihood has no relevance to them at
>>this particular point in their lives. Keep in mind - to most kids, the
>>'future' is later on that same day, or at most maybe sometime next week.
>>
>
>
> "interest them" - exactly...that interest is intrinsic
> motivation...now, YOU are making my point.
Actually I'm making my own point - at least unless you are teaching
skateboarding to your students in your classroom. (the campus were I was
teaching did have a Break Dance class - elective, but PE credit - for a
few years, and the classes were always full)
As I see it you want to students to have "Intrinsic Motivation" for
whatever academic subject that you plan on teaching them - something I
don't think that they've got. But, the kids I wrote about do have that
for learning skateboarding tricks - and why is that? IMO, it's due
mainly to them having been sold on the idea by the skateboard industry
(bit vague I know). Such companies and the associated businesses to
those, put a lot of effort and money into making those kids as
interested in the sport as they are. Same is true for most sports. (did
you take a look at the videos on the "Merchants of Cool" site I posted a
link to?). These companies do a LOT of market research as well as focus
groups with their target demographics to make sure that they get the
most consumer impact.
IMO, that these same people (or at least the same techniques) could be
used to get kids more interested in their education.
>>>You DO realize that, at this
>>>point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
>>>Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
>>
>>Really? Wow! imagine that (sort of picturing the cell phone commercials
>>where the huge group of people who run the 'network' are following
>>someone around). Up until this past summer I was a teacher, and had
>>taught eleven years. All during that time I've heard/read about the
>>problem of motivating students - and most of what I read was written
>>many years before I started teaching - so pardon me for imaging that if
>>this continues to be a problem year after year after year - that just
>>maybe - you and the industry might just be barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>
>
> And, in all that time, you never learned what Intrinsic motivation
> was...just how many inservice days (or teacher's conference days...or
> education publication reading) did you do...any?
<eye rolling> You know I might take you a bit more serious if you
weren't trying to make this personal.......
>
>>>>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>>
>>>>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
>>>>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
>>>>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>>
>>>You didn't answer the question.
>>
>>What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
>>long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
>>teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
>
>
> This is contradictory to your earlier words, where you claimed the
> problem lay in getting the kids motivated or interested in what they
> are learning.
The problem is that - the solution is what we're supposedly discussing.
I'm advocating generating student interest via the same methods and
techniques that a marketing firm might use to sell a new brand of soda
water or video game or the latest Harry Potter book.
? Not sure were that comment fits into the thread.
>>>If education is
>>>all about extrinsic motivation, you would've read the rest to see if I
>>>could help you with student excellence. You chose not to read it,
>>>though, out of ....which one...intrinsic or extrinsic reasons?
>>
>>When someone goes to a store an buys something that they actually don't
>>need - say a video or a new pair of pants - are they doing it for
>>intrinsic or extrinsic reasons? Kids see a new commercial for some toy
>>or product (say breakfast cereal) and bug their parents into getting it
>>for them - the idea of the product might be extrinsic, but I would say
>>that the kids motivation to acquire one for themselves is intrinsic.
>>
>
>
> You didn't answer the question. Which motivation causes you to not
> read it?
Again, ? you've lost me.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
>
>
> >>>Really? No one is intrinsically motivated?
>
> >>Sure they are - for whatever it is that they 'value' or interests them.
> >>Problem is - getting kids 'motivated' intrinsically for learning
> >>whatever they are suppose to be learning in public education.
>
> > Do you even KNOW what intrinsic motivation is...I'm doubting that you
> > do. Intrinsic motivation means the kids motivate themselves.
> > "getting kids motivated" as you said, is EXtrinsic motivation.
>
> Sure I know what it means - leastwise to me, what you think it is might
> not be the same.
>
> Looking at Wikipedia, the one example that I feel that matches what
> we're discussing is;
>
> "Intrinsic motivation is.... when students are....
>
> * Are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to
> achieve good grades"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
>
> My point is that "we" (someone) needs to get the kids to the point where
> they are "interested" in a topic enough to master it. Basically sell the
> idea to them that what we are attempting to teach them is worth their
> effort to learn.
>
Exactly the point of the initial post that you disagreed with. Thank
you.
>
>
> >>>Getting people to love
> >>>learning has NO impact on their future?
>
> >>Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
> >>I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
> >> majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
> >>birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
> >>it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
> >>them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
> >>particular subject/topic/activity.
>
> > People DO learn their whole life. Now, answer me this...do they spend
> > more time and effort learning what they were interested in...or what
> > they were forced to endure?
>
> Pretty vague questions - depends on the 'why'. Why are they trying to
> learn something that they are being forced to endure? I've been forced
> to endure many a professional development sessions, where I had to learn
> some thing or another - 'why' did I do that? Basically cuz, thats what
> my boss wanted me to do. I would wager, that as an adult - I've probably
> put in about the same amount of time and effort into learning stuff that
> I wanted as I have stuff that I needed to.
>
> Question is - what makes some stuff something that I want to spend time
> and effort learning and the other stuff not? And can someone be "sold"
> on the idea of liking to learn something that they might not normally?
>
> I think they can.
>
You didn't answer the question. Do people spend more time learning
what they want to learn in life or things they are forced to learn
(include learning sports scores or what their political party is up
to....do you think Republicans are equally interested in learning
Democrat positions and vice versa)?
Almost all of your words here agree with my initial post...so what's
your beef?
> >>>You DO realize that, at this
> >>>point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
> >>>Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
>
> >>Really? Wow! imagine that (sort of picturing the cell phone commercials
> >>where the huge group of people who run the 'network' are following
> >>someone around). Up until this past summer I was a teacher, and had
> >>taught eleven years. All during that time I've heard/read about the
> >>problem of motivating students - and most of what I read was written
> >>many years before I started teaching - so pardon me for imaging that if
> >>this continues to be a problem year after year after year - that just
> >>maybe - you and the industry might just be barking up the wrong tree.
>
> > And, in all that time, you never learned what Intrinsic motivation
> > was...just how many inservice days (or teacher's conference days...or
> > education publication reading) did you do...any?
>
> <eye rolling> You know I might take you a bit more serious if you
> weren't trying to make this personal.......
After you admitted to being obstinate?
> >>>>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>
> >>>>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
> >>>>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
> >>>>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>
> >>>You didn't answer the question.
>
> >>What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
> >>long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
> >>teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
>
> > This is contradictory to your earlier words, where you claimed the
> > problem lay in getting the kids motivated or interested in what they
> > are learning.
>
> The problem is that - the solution is what we're supposedly discussing.
> I'm advocating generating student interest via the same methods and
> techniques that a marketing firm might use to sell a new brand of soda
> water or video game or the latest Harry Potter book.
If you are advocating increasing "intrinsic motivation" for "student
excellence" (see subject line of post), what..exactly, do you disagree
with my post?
Easy answer to avoid dealing with the question.
>
> >>>>>>>One says to praise the students and help them to
> >>>>>>>be fulfilled as a person. Once they reach that feeling of
> >>>>>>>fulfillment, they will want to do studies (the theory suggests).
> >>>>>>>Thus, the goal of the teacher is to give them less standards and more
> >>>>>>>praise. I think there is a few major problems with this philosophy.
> >>>>>>>First, students follow the modeling of their teacher. If their
> >>>>>>>teacher is presenting a low evaluation of the need for academics, the
> >>>>>>>student may be likewise motivated to reject academics, even if
> >>>>>>>properly praised. Second, Education theorists would have you believe
> >>>>>>>that reinforcement creates behavior. If the student is praised in the
> >>>>>>>middle of disruption and rebellion, you have just reinforce that
> >>>>>>>misbehavior...this is how class clowns and bullies are born.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdd7e264-a367-4661...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 3:50 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
>
>
> >>>Really? No one is intrinsically motivated?
>
> >>Sure they are - for whatever it is that they 'value' or interests them.
> >>Problem is - getting kids 'motivated' intrinsically for learning
> >>whatever they are suppose to be learning in public education.
>
> > Do you even KNOW what intrinsic motivation is...I'm doubting that you
> > do. Intrinsic motivation means the kids motivate themselves.
> > "getting kids motivated" as you said, is EXtrinsic motivation.
>
> Sure I know what it means - leastwise to me, what you think it is might
> not be the same.
>
> Looking at Wikipedia, the one example that I feel that matches what
> we're discussing is;
>
> "Intrinsic motivation is.... when students are....
>
> * Are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to
> achieve good grades"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
>
> My point is that "we" (someone) needs to get the kids to the point where
> they are "interested" in a topic enough to master it. Basically sell the
> idea to them that what we are attempting to teach them is worth their
> effort to learn.
>
Exactly the point of the initial post that you disagreed with. Thank
you.
________________________________
OK--so how are you doing that? You *are* working towards that goal. right?
So I am interested in what you are doing to create *intrinsic* motivation in
students, especially in subjects that they don't particularly care for.
___________________________________
Do people spend any time learning anything they are not motivated to learn?
I could not tell you a single basketball score---don't care at all. But I
can tell you how to create a topiary spiral. There is a student at the
school where I teach who seemed totally incapable of remembering her times
tables, though she seemed to work hard at learning them, from both her
teacher's and her mother's perspectives. One day the teacher was changing
the seating arrangement on his classroom, and she asked if she could sit by
her best friend. The teacher told her that, as soon as she passed her math
facts test, she could change desks. By the end of the week she passed her
math facts test, and never had trouble with them again. How did the
motivator of sitting by her friend make such a huge difference in her score?
And how do we, as teachers, know what those motivators are going to be?
It's all well and good to say that we need to get the students self
movitated, but the question is, how do we do that? How do you do so?
_________________________
The question is, how do you suggest that teachers go about achieving this
goal? I doubt if very many people disagree that motivated students are
better learners. But do you think there is a method that will produce this
self-motivation?
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:fdd7e264-a367-4661...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
You wouldn't think people would disagree with it...then, you have the
last discussion with Rowley, who decided to take on the whole
Educational system.
Anyway, the method of helping to create intrinsic education is found
in the word Efficacy in the subject line and that section in the
initial post that Rowley never fully read. So, go back and read the
part of my post below his name in the posts ... which he never read or
replied after it.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
Just call me Don Quixote.....
Martin
Rowley
What I 'disagreed' with was going with the "two theories" and instead
hire some marketing people to sell the kids on getting a good education.
-- excerpt from my first post in this thread ------
> Now, there are two theories about how to reach student efficacy and
> student potential.
And I bet they've been around for decades. What they need to do is dump
those theories and hire some marketing people.
Martin
--------------------
>
>
>>
>>>>>Getting people to love
>>>>>learning has NO impact on their future?
>>
>>>>Been thinking about this - "loving learning" - since the last post that
>>>>I made. IMO (and from what I've read other people think this too...) the
>>>> majority of ALL people learn - everyday, it's something that starts at
>>>>birth and continues pretty much till the day they die. Whether they like
>>>>it, love it isn't really an issue. What is see people saying when I see
>>>>them write/say someone "love learning..." is that person loves some
>>>>particular subject/topic/activity.
>>
>>>People DO learn their whole life. Now, answer me this...do they spend
>>>more time and effort learning what they were interested in...or what
>>>they were forced to endure?
>>
>>Pretty vague questions - depends on the 'why'. Why are they trying to
>>learn something that they are being forced to endure? I've been forced
>>to endure many a professional development sessions, where I had to learn
>>some thing or another - 'why' did I do that? Basically cuz, thats what
>>my boss wanted me to do. I would wager, that as an adult - I've probably
>>put in about the same amount of time and effort into learning stuff that
>>I wanted as I have stuff that I needed to.
>>
>>Question is - what makes some stuff something that I want to spend time
>>and effort learning and the other stuff not? And can someone be "sold"
>>on the idea of liking to learn something that they might not normally?
>>
>>I think they can.
>>
>
>
> You didn't answer the question.
That seems to be a sticking point for you - yet when I went back and
looked at my initial post - I noticed there were a couple of things that
you failed to address too.
> Do people spend more time learning
> what they want to learn in life or things they are forced to learn
> (include learning sports scores or what their political party is up
> to....do you think Republicans are equally interested in learning
> Democrat positions and vice versa)?
Yes, I do think that Republicans are interested in learning Democrat
positions - the same as the PC manufactures are interested in what Apple
is doing with their Macs. Keeping up with what the competition is doing
seems to me something that most successful organizations do.
"Where's the Beef?" - hmmm, an old Wendy's advertising campaign from the
'80s..... (amazing how some things stick in people head for years) Well,
if I had to point at the hamburger pattie, I would say it's the methods
(theories) being used to do this student "motivation" - personally, I
think that public education needs a complete makeover in that area.
But, I seem to remember mentioning that a few times.
>
>>>>>You DO realize that, at this
>>>>>point, you are not just arguing with me but the whole Education
>>>>>Industry that says intrinsic motivation is key.
>>
>>>>Really? Wow! imagine that (sort of picturing the cell phone commercials
>>>>where the huge group of people who run the 'network' are following
>>>>someone around). Up until this past summer I was a teacher, and had
>>>>taught eleven years. All during that time I've heard/read about the
>>>>problem of motivating students - and most of what I read was written
>>>>many years before I started teaching - so pardon me for imaging that if
>>>>this continues to be a problem year after year after year - that just
>>>>maybe - you and the industry might just be barking up the wrong tree.
>>
>>>And, in all that time, you never learned what Intrinsic motivation
>>>was...just how many inservice days (or teacher's conference days...or
>>>education publication reading) did you do...any?
>>
>><eye rolling> You know I might take you a bit more serious if you
>>weren't trying to make this personal.......
>
>
> After you admitted to being obstinate?
Ah, you're one of those people who take such things personally. That is
one of the major problems with communicating via Usenet posts - you
don't know what people are going to read between the lines.
As a teacher, I made it a policy not to take such things personally when
interacting with students (or some administrators).
>
>>>>>>>Don't you want students that were self-motivated?
>>
>>>>>>Quick - list ten things that kids do because of self motivation and then
>>>>>>ten that they do because someone sold them on the idea of doing it.
>>>>>>Which list of ten did you complete first / fastest?
>>
>>>>>You didn't answer the question.
>>
>>>>What question? "Don't you want students that were self-motivated?"?, so
>>>>long as the kids came in and made the effort of learning what I had to
>>>>teach them - it really doesn't matter what their motivation is.
>>
>>>This is contradictory to your earlier words, where you claimed the
>>>problem lay in getting the kids motivated or interested in what they
>>>are learning.
>>
>>The problem is that - the solution is what we're supposedly discussing.
>>I'm advocating generating student interest via the same methods and
>>techniques that a marketing firm might use to sell a new brand of soda
>>water or video game or the latest Harry Potter book.
>
>
> If you are advocating increasing "intrinsic motivation" for "student
> excellence" (see subject line of post), what..exactly, do you disagree
> with my post?
My initial post concerned the "How" not the "What" - and has continued
to be that.
Martin
Bob LeChevalier
>Anyway, the method of helping to create intrinsic education
"Intrinsic motivation", I hope you mean.
>is found in the word Efficacy in the subject line
That does not tell how to create intrinsic motivation. That is merely
applying a different sort of extrinsic motivator instead of reward or
esteem-building.
The teacher cannot create intrinsic motivation. If the teacher does
it, then by definition it is extrinsic to the student.
lojbab
teachrmama
"Rowley" <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m8Lej.2754$se5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
<chuckle>
teachrmama
I read it. I read all of it. I've been following along, but have not been
able to quite grasp what you point is. This is what your article says about
efficacy:
"One of the keys of this motivation is student efficacy,
which is basically where the students feel good about themselves and
translate that into motivation to study and learn."
So if students feel good about themselves, they will translate it into a
motivation to study and learn? I bet the skateboarders discussed in this
trhead feel very good about themselves when skateboarding, and *do*
translate it into a desire to learn more skateboarding moves. But it does
not change their desire to study and learn. HOW do we get them to feel good
about themselves as far as those things that we want them to study and learn
areconcerned?
Another quote about efficacy:
"So, I think the only path to efficacy and student success would seem
to be the second view of how to create efficacy. You push the
students (against their will) to learn and grow (change is always
difficult but often beneficial). They may dislike you, but they gain
more skills and knowledge, making their schoolwork easier and
preparing them for future grades. Meanwhile, their good grades and
ability makes them feel good about themselves, and student efficacy
and intrinsic motivation (for student excellence) is born."
But this is exactly what my question is about. HOW do you push them hard
enough to create this efficacy? I agree that lowering standards is doing
nobody any good. But there have always been unmotivated students, and,
undoubtedly, there always will. So, rather than just saying that we need to
"create efficacy," please share your ideas for doing so.
Seveigny
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:dfaln39a9cfg3vp5s...@4ax.com...
Snip, following thread.
> Intrinsic motivation is by definition not under any external control,
> and therefore irrelevant to any decision making about public school
> policy. After all, if the policy of teacher or school or system could
> affect the motivation, then it would be external motivation.
It isn't that simple. I teach US history, a subject of little interest to
most of my students. Why? Because they see no connection between the past
and the present. When I manage to give them a link, their curiousity impels
them to learn more. Example? When I was teaching about the Spanish
American War, I started by asking them about the tabloid newspapers in the
grocery store. We talked about aliens, 300 pound cats and other headlines
they had seen. They clearly understood the purpose of tabloids in 2007.
Then I asked if the media concentrated on some stories more than others.
Lots of volunteers---about Brittany Spears, Anna Nicole Smith and other hot
media topics. With a bit of questioning they talked about saturation,
repetition, and why the major TV channels all covered the same stories. We
talked about bias and they used FOX and CNN as examples of media bias. Then
I backtracked, asked about the coverage by Pulitzer and Hearst of the
Spanish American War and they could see the same techniques being used. I
ended by having groups of students create tabloid news headlines for the
Spanish American War, the annexation of Hawaii, war in the Philippines and
other relevant areas of 20th century imperialistic expansion. What I've
found is that if I can show them the relevance of the subject matter, they
have intrinsic motivation to learn more about it.
>
>
> It doesn't matter. The public school system is required to teach the
> state-approved curriculum, not what the student is self-motivated to
> learn.
Sigh. Yes, we are required to teach the curriculum. However, I believe
that the state approved curriculum, with all its warts, is important. Some
of it is poltically motivated. For example, I am required to teach my
students how religion has influenced American history:
11.3 Students analyze the role religion played in the founding of America,
its lasting moral, social, and political impacts, and issues regarding
religious liberty.
1.. Describe the contributions of various religious groups to American
civic principles and social reform movements (e.g., civil and human rights,
individual responsibility and the work ethic, antimonarchy and self-rule,
worker protection, family-centered communities).
2.. Analyze the great religious revivals and the leaders involved in them,
including the First Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, the Civil
War revivals, the Social Gospel Movement, the rise of Christian liberal
theology in the nineteenth century, the impact of the Second Vatican
Council, and the rise of Christian fundamentalism in current times.
3.. Cite incidences of religious intolerance in the United States (e.g.,
persecution of Mormons, anti-Catholic sentiment, anti-Semitism).
4.. Discuss the expanding religious pluralism in the United States and
California that resulted from large-scale immigration in the twentieth
century.
5.. Describe the principles of religious liberty found in the
Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, including
the debate on the issue of separation of church and state.
Is this politcally motivated? Probably. Is it relevant? Certainly. Would
my students, who live in suburban California, investigate this on their own?
Probably not. Does it impact their lives and their choices? Certainly.
Can I connect it to their lives? I'm trying to do so.
> It is not contradictory. If they are internally motivated, something
> entirely outside the teacher's control, then they will make the
> effort. If they are externally motivated, then they will make the
> effort. "It does not matter what their motivation is". That is,
> **if** they have motivation.
It isn't an either/or situation. If they are intrinsically motivated, they
will learn because they have a desire to know. If they are extrinsically
motivated they will learn because they have a goal. In order to reach that
goal, they will jump through whatever hoop I present.
> If they are motivated, then there is no problem. If they need to be
> given some form of external motivation, then providing that external
> motivation is a problem. So **if** there is a problem, it is one of
> providing external motivation.
Everyone has motivations. The key is, what is their motivation? The kid
that practices skate board jumps, over and over again, is motivated to
improve his skill in that area. Learning about biology doesn't help him
improve his skate board jumps unless he knows about muscle memory. Learning
about probability and statistics isn't important unless he understands how
many jumps he has to make in order to improve his skills.
~Cate
Rowley
Martin
Seveigny wrote:
> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:dfaln39a9cfg3vp5s...@4ax.com...
> Snip, following thread.
>
>
>>Intrinsic motivation is by definition not under any external control,
>>and therefore irrelevant to any decision making about public school
>>policy. After all, if the policy of teacher or school or system could
>>affect the motivation, then it would be external motivation.
>
>
> It isn't that simple. I teach US history, a subject of little interest to
> most of my students. Why? Because they see no connection between the past
> and the present.
IMO - it's also because the subject is mainly about "grown-ups" and not
"kids". Kids need to be able to see a bit of themselves in something to
be able to identify & empathize with it.
A few years ago there was a cartoon series called "Liberty's Kids " -
which sort of taught parts of US history, but the main characters were a
couple of kids that somehow just happened to be someplace at the right
time to see this history happening - so the view-point was through the
eyes of these kids.
> When I manage to give them a link, their curiousity impels
> them to learn more. Example? When I was teaching about the Spanish
> American War, I started by asking them about the tabloid newspapers in the
> grocery store. We talked about aliens, 300 pound cats and other headlines
> they had seen. They clearly understood the purpose of tabloids in 2007.
I used tabloids like that as the focus of one of my DTP/graphics
(photoshop) assignments. Generated a lot of interest in the assignment.
> Then I asked if the media concentrated on some stories more than others.
> Lots of volunteers---about Brittany Spears, Anna Nicole Smith and other hot
> media topics. With a bit of questioning they talked about saturation,
> repetition, and why the major TV channels all covered the same stories. We
> talked about bias and they used FOX and CNN as examples of media bias. Then
> I backtracked, asked about the coverage by Pulitzer and Hearst of the
> Spanish American War and they could see the same techniques being used. I
> ended by having groups of students create tabloid news headlines for the
> Spanish American War, the annexation of Hawaii, war in the Philippines and
> other relevant areas of 20th century imperialistic expansion. What I've
> found is that if I can show them the relevance of the subject matter, they
> have intrinsic motivation to learn more about it.
I found doing stuff like that effective too. Tie whatever you are trying
to teaching into something the student already 'knows' or has some
interest about. I also found that building in hooks in earlier lessons
that I used to tie things together in later lessons helped a lot too.
And "what" shaped those motivations? And what might "we" (public
education) have done earlier to make sure the kids have some motivation
aligned to what "we" (PE) are wanting them to do while in school?
Use to be here (locally where I was teaching), we had programs in place
where people (directors, councilors, teachers, & even some of the hs
students) when down to the lower grades and talked with / presented
information to intermediate / middle school students about what the
classes / activities the high school offered - and also some information
on vocational choices and what sort of courses they might take to aid in
that. Nowadays (past six years or so) that just hasn't happen. The
current PTBs apparently just don't see a value in doing that (especially
since it might take time away from studying for the TAKS - least that
was the impression I got). So lately the first time a lot of these 8th
grade students start thinking about such things is when they are given a
course catalog at the end of their last school year in middle school
(which is seems that most don't even bother looking at). So we started
ending up with a lot of "unmotivated" students, who had no idea what
they wanted to do later in life or even for the next four years.
> The kid
> that practices skate board jumps, over and over again, is motivated to
> improve his skill in that area. Learning about biology doesn't help him
> improve his skate board jumps unless he knows about muscle memory. Learning
> about probability and statistics isn't important unless he understands how
> many jumps he has to make in order to improve his skills.
The reverse might be better - tying in his/her interest in skateboarding
to learning about muscle memory or relating statistics to the number of
jumps they make before becoming proficient.
Taking something that they already have an interest in and expanding it
to include what PE is attempting to do.
Martin
> ~Cate
>
>
stevericks
outside, intrinsic is from the inside. At some point, it seems the words
become useless or blurred. Many teachers believe that they are
extrinsically motivating students to hopefully become
internally-intrinsically motivated. So if extrinsic motivation leads to
intrinsic motivation...yes it is confusing.
Stevenews:3tLej.82109$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Rowley
on tape actually) - "blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking" by
Malcolm Gladwell.
http://www.gladwell.com/blink/
Haven't finished it yet (about 1/5 into it) - but the author presents in
part of the book, some interesting ideas on how people's decision-making
can be manipulated or at least influenced.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> I have enjoyed reading the comments on this topic. Extrinsic is from the
> outside, intrinsic is from the inside. At some point, it seems the words
> become useless or blurred. Many teachers believe that they are
> extrinsically motivating students to hopefully become
> internally-intrinsically motivated. So if extrinsic motivation leads to
> intrinsic motivation...yes it is confusing.
I'm not sure extrinsic motivation does lead to intrinsic motivation.
In fact, I'd say I don't think that is true. Intrinsic motivation is
doing the work for yourself, without regard to reward. Introducing
rewards and punishment (while possibly effective) would only seem (in
my opinion) to create greed for more rewards or disregard for
authority....NOT the desire to do it for yourself.
However, if you help the students succeed, it is THEIR success, and
the joy and inspiration that comes from that comes from inside, not
external sources.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
>
>>I have enjoyed reading the comments on this topic. Extrinsic is from the
>>outside, intrinsic is from the inside. At some point, it seems the words
>>become useless or blurred. Many teachers believe that they are
>>extrinsically motivating students to hopefully become
>>internally-intrinsically motivated. So if extrinsic motivation leads to
>>intrinsic motivation...yes it is confusing.
So.. by your account, if I do 'something' and my only 'reward' is my own
satisfaction of a job well done. That doesn't count as intrinsic because
I did get something out of it.
Last night while shopping at Wal-mart, I stopped by the video section
where there is a huge bin of discount DVDs ($5). These videos were a
mess - it looked as if they had been dumped into the bin (this is mainly
due to people digging into the bin and just tossing the videos every
which way.
One of my ex-students who works at the store was trying to make videos
in the bin a bit more organized. He was arranging the DVDs in neat rows
with the spline of the packages facing up and in the same direction -
which makes it a lot more easier to see what there is in the bin than
just digging through it. I told him it was a futile task as the
customers would just turn the bin back into a chaotic mess as soon as he
left. He said he knew that to be true - but that he liked to do it at
least couple times each week.
While we were talking a family stopped by the bin to look for a
particular video. It took awhile but the adults eventually found the one
that they were looking for. But, while they were looking one of the two
children with them (a girl about 10-11 years old) had seen what the
clerk was doing - patiently sorting and stacking the videos and she
started doing that as well - even after the clerk had gotten tired of it
and wandered off. The family almost had to drag her away from the task
she had set for herself - and even then they didn't do that till she had
the whole bin neatly stacked. I overheard her bother asking her why she
was doing this, and she replied "I just want too!!".
Seems to me that this little girl's actions were prompted by external
stimuli of seeing what the clerk was trying to do (I doubt with out the
seed of the clerk's activity that she would have started doing this on
her own), which she then internalized into a motivation to do what she
did. Then again, maybe she is just borderline OCD. Either way, the only
reward I could see that she got was her own satisfaction that she had
did it - which to me is still a reward.
Martin
stevericks
search. This was the first definition and looks good to me:
Definition: Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comes from inside
an individual rather than from any external or outside rewards, such as
money or grades.
The motivation comes from the pleasure one gets from the task itself or from
the sense of satisfaction in completing or even working on a task.
An intrinsically motivated person will work on a math equation, for example,
because it is enjoyable. Or an intrinsically motivated person will work on a
solution to a problem because the challenge of finding a solution is
provides a sense of pleasure. In neither case does the person work on the
task because there is some reward involved, such as a prize, a payment, or
in the case of students, a grade.
Intrinsic motivation does not mean, however, that a person will not seek
rewards.
It just means that such external rewards are not enough to keep a person
motivated. An intrinsically motivated student, for example, may want to get
a good grade on an assignment, but if the assignment does not interest that
student, the possibility of a good grade is not enough to maintain that
student's motivation to put any effort into the project.
Definition: Extrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comes from
outside an individual. The motivating factors are external, or outside,
rewards such as money or grades. These rewards provide satisfaction and
pleasure that the task itself may not provide.
An extrinsically motivated person will work on a task even when they have
little interest in it because of the anticipated satisfaction they will get
from some reward. The rewards can be something as minor as a smiley face to
something major like fame or fortune. For example, an extrinsically
motivated person who dislikes math may work hard on a math equation because
want the reward for completing it. In the case of a student, the reward
would be a good grade on an assignment or in the class.
Extrinsic motivation does not mean, however, that a person will not get any
pleasure from working on or completing a task.
even when the task to be done holds little or no interest. An extrinsically
motivated student, for example, may dislike an assignment, may find it
boring, or may have no interest in the subject, but the possibility of a
good grade will be enough to keep the student motivated in order for him or
her to put forth the effort to do well on a task.
Steve
"Rowley" <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K8Kkj.4254$jJ5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
stevericks
All this is from 30 years ago-your making my head hurt. If you get outside
"educational psychology" into a university psychology department that is
connected to the sciences (both of the universities I went to were this way-
ed psych was something taught by the education department and the "true"
psych dept felt the ed psych people didn't know what they were talking
about ---not trying to provoke a confrontation here, just letting you know
my frame of reference in my answer), we were taught that motivation was
something internal to a person. Motivating someone wasn't a good use of the
term. All you could do was provide stimuli. Motivation came from the
person who -hopefully, would respond to the stimuli.
Steve
"stevericks" <steve...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7zLkj.76886$L%6.6...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Rowley
> All of my psych books are in the shed, so I took the easy route: -quick web
> search. This was the first definition and looks good to me:
>
> Definition: Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comes from inside
> an individual rather than from any external or outside rewards, such as
> money or grades.
Sounds right.
> The motivation comes from the pleasure one gets from the task itself or from
> the sense of satisfaction in completing or even working on a task.
Sounds right too...
> An intrinsically motivated person will work on a math equation, for example,
> because it is enjoyable.
This is where things start to get muddy. "enjoying" something is a
reward - IMO. Doing something that you don't enjoy - I have a hard time
accepting that external motivation doesn't play a part.
> Or an intrinsically motivated person will work on a
> solution to a problem because the challenge of finding a solution is
> provides a sense of pleasure. In neither case does the person work on the
> task because there is some reward involved, such as a prize, a payment, or
> in the case of students, a grade.
But why some tasks and not others? What motivates one person to work on
a math problem and another to work on a skateboard routine - but not
vice versa? Personally (and I'm not a former psychologist like you), I
feel that external stimuli plays a huge role in shaping those intrinsic
motivations.
> Intrinsic motivation does not mean, however, that a person will not seek
> rewards.
But why do some people seek those internal rewards and others do not -
and is this a learned thing or part of the natural pchological makeup of
all humans?
> It just means that such external rewards are not enough to keep a person
> motivated.
Or IMO, that the rewards are not the correct ones for that individual.
finding out 'what' motivates students - both individual and as a group
is a major part of the classroom battle, least that is my opinion.
> An intrinsically motivated student, for example, may want to get
> a good grade on an assignment, but if the assignment does not interest that
> student, the possibility of a good grade is not enough to maintain that
> student's motivation to put any effort into the project.
I could (and did) see that in some students - I also saw evidence that
the grade itself wasn't the entire motivation - what the grade got them
was - and even that might have been a secondary factor. I feel that if
you follow the trail of connecting external motivations far enough down
the line - at some point it might just come back to having been an
internal motivation that was driving the individual's actions.
> Definition: Extrinsic motivation refers to motivation that comes from
> outside an individual. The motivating factors are external, or outside,
> rewards such as money or grades. These rewards provide satisfaction and
> pleasure that the task itself may not provide.
Money and even grades are tangible things - things that you acquire that
have 'value', and can be used to acquire other things. One of the things
I remember most about many of my students was the question of "Why?" -
why are we doing this? Why do I need to learn this? and various forms of
the same questions.... Even after teaching for 11 years - I have a hard
time thinking of a student that wanted to learn what I had to teach
purely because of an intrinsic motivation to learn. According to
Maslow's pyramid - learning the sort of things we teach in school are in
the top two tiers of needs, which to my thinking are heavily
influenced/shaped by outside forces.
> An extrinsically motivated person will work on a task even when they have
> little interest in it because of the anticipated satisfaction they will get
> from some reward.
I doubt the little girl last night had any real interest in the order of
the DVD cases - but I have little doubt that she did receive a reward
for finishing the task - her own self-satisfaction. My guess is -
basically, she was bored shopping with her parents and this provided her
with an activity to occupy her time and mind. She internalized it as
some sort of game, one which she won.
Martin
teachrmama
It seems that you have already decided that extrinsic motivation is not the
way to go; that we, as teachers, somehow need to dish up great servings if
intrinsic motivation. Now, please (I have asked before), share with us
*how* to accomplish this feat. My experience has shown me that if I reward
my kindergartners with stickers as they go through the process of learning
to blend sounds to read works they will work hard at the task to earn the
sticker. Then one day, when they are in the reading center, I will hear a
delighted squeal and they will come running across the room yelling
"teacher, teacher, I found the word "and!!!" At that point they become
intrinsically motivated to find more workds they can read--no stickers
involved. But I guess all my experience must be wrong, because you seem to
be saying that giving them stickers cannot lead to them discovering the joy
of reading.
stevericks
problem. About any text you read will explain that intrinsic motivation is
what the teacher wants to see in students. When they don't, teachers tend
to rely on extrinsic motivation. If I knew how to create intrinsic
motivation I would be world famous. Of course, I would have also likely
have skills to create world peace, solve the greenhouse problem, and develop
a method for using an alternative, nonpolluting energy source ---before
solving that question. :)
Steve
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fn03n...@news1.newsguy.com...
teachrmama
motivation within another person--because we are outside, we can only use
the extrinsic to, hopefully, ignite the intrinsic.
"stevericks" <steve...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:O8Nkj.70098$rc2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Rowley
person. My belief is we all have intrinsic motivation, and it's just the
matter of 'igniting' it as you mentioned and shaping what it gets
focused on. But we just don't do that as it takes time and effort to do
so and the process is different for each individual.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> > However, if you help the students succeed, it is THEIR success, and
> > the joy and inspiration that comes from that comes from inside, not
> > external sources.
Address this point...since you left it out. Is this example of
intrinsic motivation caused by marketing or internal?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:9a02eb84-a7d6-4f10...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 10:58 am, "stevericks" <steveri...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> I have enjoyed reading the comments on this topic. Extrinsic is from the
> >> outside, intrinsic is from the inside. At some point, it seems the words
> >> become useless or blurred. Many teachers believe that they are
> >> extrinsically motivating students to hopefully become
> >> internally-intrinsically motivated. So if extrinsic motivation leads to
> >> intrinsic motivation...yes it is confusing.
>
> > I'm not sure extrinsic motivation does lead to intrinsic motivation.
> > In fact, I'd say I don't think that is true. Intrinsic motivation is
> > doing the work for yourself, without regard to reward. Introducing
> > rewards and punishment (while possibly effective) would only seem (in
> > my opinion) to create greed for more rewards or disregard for
> > authority....NOT the desire to do it for yourself.
>
> > However, if you help the students succeed, it is THEIR success, and
> > the joy and inspiration that comes from that comes from inside, not
> > external sources.
>
> It seems that you have already decided that extrinsic motivation is not the
> way to go; that we, as teachers, somehow need to dish up great servings if
> intrinsic motivation. Now, please (I have asked before), share with us
> *how* to accomplish this feat.
Read my last paragraph, again.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
You don't think that knowing that if you struggle the teacher is going to be
there to help you succeed is extrinsic motivation? It's coming from the
outside, isn't it?
stevericks
completely lost as to what was being discussed.
At some point it seemed like there was a question about the influence of
peer acceptance on K-3 grades in terms of academic achievement. Didn't both
you and I say, based on our experience (and psych research) that especially
at the K-1 level, kids didn't seem as much influenced by social acceptance
as by praise from an authority figure or from a sticker?
Then, somehow the conversation became entangled in intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In a nutshell, the textbook definition of the two is:
intrinsic-you do something because you want to (inner joy, love of it)
without an outside reward; extrinsic is you do something because of an
outside reward (pay check, cookie, sticker). It is tough to determine what
is going on inside a person with intrinsic rewards (Skinner's "black box").
And, it could be that sometimes there are really intrinsic behaviors when
one would think they were extrinsic. Remove the extrinsic reward and see if
they continue-to tell the difference.
Kenneth seems to be pushing the terms intrinsic and extrinsic beyond their
usefulness.
I don't know the preoccupation with Slavin? Why is he so special. No one
person's theory seems to fit everything well. They simply provide systems
of reference or understanding. I studied under a heavy emphasis on Maslow
in grad school (at a university run by several of his leading pupils), but I
realize his ideas are sometimes helpful, sometimes not. I also had a strong
Skinnerian influence at one university.
Having looked at your website, is the reason you are hammering on this
because you need it for a book you are writing?
Why not just say that all teachers agree that intrinsic is better than
extrinsic? Obviously, success often tends to be rewarding. However, there
are examples where this is not true. Fred Astair (spelling?), the dancer,
wanted to be considered as a serious actor (which he wasn't), instead of a
dancer (which he was very successful at).
Steve
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fn2lm...@news1.newsguy.com...
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 20, 9:54 am, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > However, if you help the students succeed, it is THEIR success, and
>> > the joy and inspiration that comes from that comes from inside, not
>> > external sources.
>
>Address this point...since you left it out. Is this example of
>intrinsic motivation caused by marketing or internal?
It isn't really "intrinsic" motivation, if it relies on outside help
to happen.
One can "help the students succeed" in a lot of ways. "Marketing" to
keep their motivation up long enough to complete a difficult task
certainly can help a student succeed.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
Your last paragraph is baloney, and does not represent what she said
at all.
One cannot "dish up" intrinsic motivation in either small great
servings. One can only recognize and respond to intrinsic motivation.
In the absence of that intrinsic motivation, a teacher can ONLY
provide extrinsic motivation.
lojbab
stevericks
is from the outside (teacher), it is extrinsic.
Steve
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ops9p3d8v0csa03he...@4ax.com...
Rowley
Succeed at what? What 'you' want them to do? or what they want to do? -
How do you make what you want what they want? Explain that.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
sf
wrote:
>You don't think that knowing that if you struggle the teacher is going to be
>there to help you succeed is extrinsic motivation? It's coming from the
>outside, isn't it?
This guy is getting boring. There is a little thing call reality that
he hasn't checked into yet and won't understand until he teaches and I
mean teaches K-12.
--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first
Wide Eyed in Wonder
upon the success of the students. You said it was all marketing.
When the students succeed in school and feel inspired to do better,
where was marketing involved?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Just jumping in here. Wow. Has this turned into a thread. I am now
> completely lost as to what was being discussed.
>
> At some point it seemed like there was a question about the influence of
> peer acceptance on K-3 grades in terms of academic achievement. Didn't both
> you and I say, based on our experience (and psych research) that especially
> at the K-1 level, kids didn't seem as much influenced by social acceptance
> as by praise from an authority figure or from a sticker?
>
> Then, somehow the conversation became entangled in intrinsic and extrinsic
> motivation. In a nutshell, the textbook definition of the two is:
> intrinsic-you do something because you want to (inner joy, love of it)
> without an outside reward; extrinsic is you do something because of an
> outside reward (pay check, cookie, sticker). It is tough to determine what
> is going on inside a person with intrinsic rewards (Skinner's "black box").
> And, it could be that sometimes there are really intrinsic behaviors when
> one would think they were extrinsic. Remove the extrinsic reward and see if
> they continue-to tell the difference.
>
BECAME about intrinsic motivation? Read the subject line and try
again.
> Kenneth seems to be pushing the terms intrinsic and extrinsic beyond their
> usefulness.
>
> I don't know the preoccupation with Slavin? Why is he so special. No one
> person's theory seems to fit everything well. They simply provide systems
> of reference or understanding. I studied under a heavy emphasis on Maslow
> in grad school (at a university run by several of his leading pupils), but I
> realize his ideas are sometimes helpful, sometimes not. I also had a strong
> Skinnerian influence at one university.
If you don't know why Slavin is so special, you haven't had college
teacher training in recent times, since he is the textbook author for
Educational Psychology used almost everywhere.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Bob, you are a clear voice in this world of chaos. I totally agree. If it
> is from the outside (teacher), it is extrinsic.
>
> Steve
So, you and Bob think that a student who did well on an assignment
would be no more motivated to do well in the future than other
students?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
Sure it does.
> My post was the desire for the intrinsic based
> upon the success of the students.
"... intrinsic based upon the success ..." ?
You know, maybe if you actually explained what sort of technique that
you want to do it might make better sense. Until then....
> You said it was all marketing.
No, I said it would be better to do marketing - or at least employ some
of the same techniques that they do in marketing.
> When the students succeed in school and feel inspired to do better,
> where was marketing involved?
Succeed? Succeed at what? What you want them to do or what they want to
do - which tends to be two different things in my experience. And if
they succeed - then where it the need for them to do "better"? IMO, it's
the kids that aren't succeeding at the school work that we need to be
more concerned with.
Martin
Rowley
most) are pretty consistent at reaching some level of "success" and then
staying there. "B" students tend to stay "B" students - and so on. Most
times, i could pretty much tell the first day what sort of grades a
student was probably going to make, simply from where in the computer
lab that they picked to sit.
But with some external encouragement / manipulation on my part (as
teacher), I could sometimes get a student to rise above whatever level
they are at - at least at times.
Martin
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
teachrmama
Rather than being condescending, why don't you explain why you feel Slavin
is so important. It would be much more useful. And while you are at it,
please explain your theory on how to create intrinsic motivation--using
Salvin's theories, of course.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Bob, you are a clear voice in this world of chaos. I totally agree. If it
>> is from the outside (teacher), it is extrinsic.
>
>would be no more motivated to do well in the future than other
>students?
S/he might, or s/he might not be "more motivated". But if doing well
was caused by teacher intervention, then it is arguable whether this
is "intrinsic" or "extrinsic". As far as I am concerned, if it
wouldn't have happened without the teacher, then it is obviously
"extrinsic" at that point. (At some later time, someone may observe
the student working along self-motivated and not know that this
derived from some teacher intervention years earlier, and therefore
think it entirely intrinsic, but that wouldn't be correct).
lojbab
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't matter.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> > My post was the desire for the intrinsic based
> > upon the success of the students.
>
> "... intrinsic based upon the success ..." ?
>
> You know, maybe if you actually explained what sort of technique that
> you want to do it might make better sense. Until then....
>
> > You said it was all marketing.
>
> No, I said it would be better to do marketing - or at least employ some
> of the same techniques that they do in marketing.
>
> > When the students succeed in school and feel inspired to do better,
> > where was marketing involved?
>
> Succeed? Succeed at what? What you want them to do or what they want to
> do - which tends to be two different things in my experience. And if
> they succeed - then where it the need for them to do "better"? IMO, it's
> the kids that aren't succeeding at the school work that we need to be
> more concerned with.
>
> Martin
Either you are intentionally not reading my comments or you have a
reading problem. Let's try this again...
Student A works hard at a science project to meet a deadline. The
student succeeds out of fear of failing the deadline (this part is
extrinsic). The student gets a passing grade for their own work.
They start feeling confidant about being able to do the work and the
next year they put more work into the science project (from confidence
gained from their own work...intrinsic). At what point was marketing
involved?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d933df92-d463-4bc9...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I just told you why Slavin is important. If you are just going to
ignore every answer you don't like, I'm done with you (since you've
ended the CONVERSATION already). I won't follow you into ignorance to
reach a conclusion you have already determined must be true.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
who had not succeeded?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
So, you do not believe in anything in education being intrinsic, since
the students are always around teachers when they get motivated? If
not, give me one example of intrinsic motivation without teacher
input.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
No, Kenneth, YOU are the one who is not answering the points. You have a
preset theory that you are trying to enforce here, and nobody else's opinion
even counts. Witness how you are trying to force me to answer your question
about Slavin in reference to a specific group of children I work with. You
do not know the children or the group set-up, but YOU have decided that
Slavin's theory is the prime motivator for that group. You are no loner
even making a pretense of considering anything that anyone else here is
saying--you are stating your opinion as fact, and blowing off anyone who
does not agree.
Bob LeChevalier
Please provide evidence that his textbook is "used almost everywhere".
Please account for all of these other textbooks (merely from the first
24 of 16767 results on amazon.com)
Educational Psychology (with MyLabSchool) (10th Edition) (MyLabSchool
Series) by Anita E Woolfolk
Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (6th Edition) by Jeanne
Ellis Ormrod
Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms (7th Edition) by Paul D.
Eggen and Donald P. Kauchak
Educational Psychology by John W Santrock
Educational Psychology: A Practitioner-Researcher Model of Teaching
(with InfoTrac®) by Richard Parsons, Stephanie Lewis Hinson, and
Debbie Sardo-Brown
Educational Psychology: A Problem-Based Approach by Elizabeth A.
Jordan and Marion J. Porath
Educational Psychology: An Integrated Approach To Classroom Decisions,
MyLabSchool Edition by Thomas A. Fetsco and John McClure
Slavin is just a textbook writer among many. He is not an especially
noted theorist like Vygotsky or Skinner (not that everyone accepts the
conclusions of even the most noted theorists)
This isn't like fundie Bible school, where someone writing something
in a book means that it is correct.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
You replied to Martin, who is neither Steve nor Bob, and therefore had
no reason to answer the question.
But Steve and I aren't obliged to answer your questions either,
*especially* since you don't answer anyone else's.
>Would students who succeeded
>at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
>who had not succeeded?
maybe or maybe not
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 22, 7:28 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 21, 1:52 pm, "stevericks" <steveri...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> Bob, you are a clear voice in this world of chaos. I totally agree. If it
>> >> is from the outside (teacher), it is extrinsic.
>>
>> >So, you and Bob think that a student who did well on an assignment
>> >would be no more motivated to do well in the future than other
>> >students?
>>
>> S/he might, or s/he might not be "more motivated". But if doing well
>> was caused by teacher intervention, then it is arguable whether this
>> is "intrinsic" or "extrinsic". As far as I am concerned, if it
>> wouldn't have happened without the teacher, then it is obviously
>> "extrinsic" at that point. (At some later time, someone may observe
>> the student working along self-motivated and not know that this
>> derived from some teacher intervention years earlier, and therefore
>> think it entirely intrinsic, but that wouldn't be correct).
>
>So, you do not believe in anything in education being intrinsic,
Self-education is intrinsic. Classroom education is extrinsic. It is
convenient when the student is self-motivated to learn something, but
hardly something one can count on.
>since the students are always around teachers when they get motivated?
Not hardly.
>If not, give me one example of intrinsic motivation without teacher
>input.
I haven't had a teacher since 1974, but I've sure learned a lot on my
own, including crosstraining into 2 fields that I never took a single
class in, nor intended to make a career out of.
lojbab
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Your words...
"if it wouldn't have happened without the teacher, then it is
obviously "extrinsic" at that point."
Did you use textbooks written by teachers? Did you learn any part
of it from another person? If so, your words are against you. Also,
Did you have a purpose for your training (an external motivation)?
Of course, your words are against you either way, since you were
claiming a student in a class cannot be intrinsically motivated..but
apparently you can.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Not noted?
5th best selling Educational Psychology textbook at amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/69834/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_5_last
Barnes and Noble sales rank of 30,000
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780205566747&itm=1
is a better sales rank than most of the books on your list. It should
also be noted he has a new edition coming out that would cause that
ranking to be higher than it should be.
Other sources that note Slavin's authority on the subject...
PBS
http://www.pbs.org/makingschoolswork/sbs/sfa/slavin.html
Wikipedia (on short list of textbooks at bottom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_psychology
Duke University
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/education/newsarchive.html?keywords=&yr=2005
In the US Govt forum for Rigorous Evidence: The Key To Progress in
Education? Lessons from Medicine, Welfare, and Other Fields -- a major
policy forum with U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
http://www.excelgov.org/index.php?keyword=a4339246667652
Education World praise for Slavin's work...
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin086.shtml
Still want to claim he would not be an authority for me to reference
here?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d85f5583-1bc0-4e9a...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Yes. I have a theory. So do you. The fact that you refuse to even
hear my words or accept my source only confirms my theory you are
closed minded to the conversation.
I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
saying (my thesis of efficacy by success). Yet, you feel the need to
keep condemning me and to invalidate the theories I give (to which you
agree)..why is that?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
Please provide evidence where teachrmama "refuses to even hear my
words or accept my source". You failed to answer the question and
gave a stupid condescending comment (hardly an effective extrinsic
motivator to get any sort of useful response). She called you on it.
>I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
>saying (my thesis of efficacy by success).
Your thesis is meaningless.
>Yet, you feel the need to keep condemning me
You are condemned, as usual, for your obnoxious posting habits.
>and to invalidate the theories I give
You haven't validated your "theory", so there is nothing to
invalidate. You just ask stupid questions to others about it, without
responding to their questions.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>
>5th best selling Educational Psychology textbook at amazon.com...
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/69834/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_5_last
Thereby proving that it is used LESS THAN 20% of "everywhere", which
isn't hardly "almost everywhere".
>Barnes and Noble sales rank of 30,000
>http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780205566747&itm=1
>is a better sales rank than most of the books on your list.
Your claim is that it is used "almost everywhere", therefore it should
have at least 80% of the market for textbooks in that subject. Yet it
isn't even the top textbook in the subject, if it is only in 5th
place.
Meanwhile, it is only a textbook, and you've taken a comment in that
textbook out of context and tried to use it to defend a thesis which
is NOT the same as the textbook statement.
>Still want to claim he would not be an authority for me to reference
>here?
I made no such claim. I said that YOUR claim, that his textbook is
used "almost everywhere" is false. I also said that it was JUST a
textbook and not an actual researcher. And I said that the comment
quoted wasn't even particularly applicable to your thesis.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Self-education is intrinsic. Classroom education is extrinsic. It is
>> convenient when the student is self-motivated to learn something, but
>> hardly something one can count on.
>>
>> >since the students are always around teachers when they get motivated?
>>
>> Not hardly.
>>
>> >If not, give me one example of intrinsic motivation without teacher
>> >input.
>>
>> I haven't had a teacher since 1974, but I've sure learned a lot on my
>> own, including crosstraining into 2 fields that I never took a single
>> class in, nor intended to make a career out of.
>
>Your words...
>"if it wouldn't have happened without the teacher, then it is
>obviously "extrinsic" at that point."
>
>Did you use textbooks written by teachers?
Sometimes. Sometimes I learn by trying things.
>Did you learn any part of it from another person? If so, your words are against you.
Only if you want to play semantic games.
>Also, Did you have a purpose for your training (an external motivation)?
I had no external purpose chosen by anyone else. I had an internal
purpose chosen by me.
>Of course, your words are against you either way, since you were
>claiming a student in a class cannot be intrinsically motivated.
No. That is NOT what I claimed. The education provided in a
classroom is inherently extrinsic, regardless of whether the student
has intrinsic motivation.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
>>On Jan 22, 7:28 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 21, 1:52 pm, "stevericks" <steveri...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> S/he might, or s/he might not be "more motivated". But if doing well
>>> was caused by teacher intervention, then it is arguable whether this
>>> is "intrinsic" or "extrinsic". As far as I am concerned, if it
>>> wouldn't have happened without the teacher, then it is obviously
>>> "extrinsic" at that point. (At some later time, someone may observe
>>> the student working along self-motivated and not know that this
>>> derived from some teacher intervention years earlier, and therefore
>>> think it entirely intrinsic, but that wouldn't be correct).
>>So, you do not believe in anything in education being intrinsic,
>Self-education is intrinsic. Classroom education is extrinsic. It is
>convenient when the student is self-motivated to learn something, but
>hardly something one can count on.
>>since the students are always around teachers when they get motivated?
>Not hardly.
>>If not, give me one example of intrinsic motivation without teacher
>>input.
To the best of my recollection, it was not until I took
advanced courses that teacher input was much of a problem.
I did learn in elementary school, but mainly from the
presentation of the subject and from the textbook, very
little from the teachers. The same was true in high
school, and I studied much mathematics and science on
my own, and to a considerable extent in the college
courses I took. Those teachers from whom I learned were
the ones who presented what was NOT in the textbook.
Some of the concepts were in the advanced textbooks, a
few were presented by the teachers, but many I had to
scramble out of bad presentations. It was not until
I had seen a formal presentation that I realized what
was involved in learning a concept, and tried thereafter
to do that for the ones I used informally.
>I haven't had a teacher since 1974, but I've sure learned a lot on my
>own, including crosstraining into 2 fields that I never took a single
>class in, nor intended to make a career out of.
>lojbab
Transpose the last two digits in my case. There was no
"crosstraining", but mostly application of the pure
mathematics I had learned.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
stevericks
and enjoyed every moment of the rehearsals and play. Following the
conclusions of performances, he dropped drama. He said -it was fun. I
enjoyed it. I'm done with it.
Real life example that happened this month.
Steve
Trying to determine causation is very difficult. It varies from student to
student.
Would you mind sharing why all of this is so important to you? You are
pursuing this as if your idea isn't supported, the workd will crumble.
You might want to explore some other psych courses where Slavin isn't a god.
Most of us have sat through Slavin and others.
Steve
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c94aa693-00cb-4148...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Rowley
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
> On Jan 22, 6:33 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It wouldn't matter.
>>
>>Sure it does.
>>
>>
>>>My post was the desire for the intrinsic based
>>>upon the success of the students.
>>
>>"... intrinsic based upon the success ..." ?
>>
>>You know, maybe if you actually explained what sort of technique that
>>you want to do it might make better sense. Until then....
>>
>>
>>> You said it was all marketing.
>>
>>No, I said it would be better to do marketing - or at least employ some
>>of the same techniques that they do in marketing.
>>
>>
>>>When the students succeed in school and feel inspired to do better,
>>>where was marketing involved?
>>
>>Succeed? Succeed at what? What you want them to do or what they want to
>>do - which tends to be two different things in my experience. And if
>>they succeed - then where it the need for them to do "better"? IMO, it's
>>the kids that aren't succeeding at the school work that we need to be
>>more concerned with.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
> Either you are intentionally not reading my comments or you have a
> reading problem. Let's try this again...
Ok..
> Student A works hard at a science project to meet a deadline. The
> student succeeds out of fear of failing the deadline (this part is
> extrinsic).
So being fearful of something is extrinsic - ok, I'll buy that. Fear is
strong motivation.
> The student gets a passing grade for their own work.
> They start feeling confidant about being able to do the work and the
> next year they put more work into the science project (from confidence
> gained from their own work...intrinsic).
More likely they will just fear whatever it was that they were scared of
the first time.
> At what point was marketing
> involved?
You could apply marketing techniques to a number of elements for this
subject / project - the first that comes to mind is doing something to
maybe negate whatever it is that the student was afraid of.
Martin
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
>
Rowley
> You didn't answer the question, again. Would students who succeeded
> at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
> who had not succeeded?
It would depend on the nature of the next assignment - IMO. If it was
exactly like the one that they succeeded / failed on - then maybe yes
and maybe no. Why did the one student succeed? and why did the other
fail? Sometimes failure is itself a strong motivation to try harder the
next time.
Martin
Rowley
My two cents on this....
I see "intrinsic" learning to be like breathing... People do it
naturally without even thinking about it - for example, the skateboarder
learning a new trick. But when it comes to "learning" in the classroom -
this to me is more extrinsic than intrinsic - an analogy would be
someone scuba diving. When a person goes scuba diving, they are being
placed in a artificial environment, one where the air they are breathing
has been prepared / provided by someone else and is controlled via a
regulator. It's not at all like natural breathing - it's something that
takes some degree of conscience effort. School is like this IMO, the
students are in an artificial environment, where what they are
"learning" has been prepared and provided for them and it is delivered
via some regulated standard and done in a standardized method.
Martin
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ae20768-54e1-42b4...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I have not presented any theories here, Kenneth. You have. I spoke about a
specific group of children I am working with. YOU tried to apply your
theory to this group of children in contradiction to what I had observed
about them, although you have never even met them. I disagreed. I have not
commented about your theory at all, other than as you have tried to apply it
to a specific group of children that you have never met
>
> I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
> saying (my thesis of efficacy by success). Yet, you feel the need to
> keep condemning me and to invalidate the theories I give (to which you
> agree)..why is that?
Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis. As a teacher, I
would like students to develop an intrinsic reward system, but I also
realize that sometimes the first steps need to be rewarded extrinsically.
Just as the house is not furnished until the walls are built, often the
intrinsic drive does not develop until the fundamentals are in place. I
have never received a full answer to my questio to you about just how to
bring this intrinsic desire to learn to life in our students. Perhaps you
could provide a step-by-step guide to achieving this.
Wide Eyed in Wonder
No. Specifically, how was marketing involved in the given student's
motivation, if it's all marketing?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0ae20768-54e1-42b4...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Two lies. 1. Your theory of why the students were motivated was
given (two theories in fact). 2. You admit to disagreeing with my
theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
>
>
> > I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
> > saying (my thesis of efficacy by success). Yet, you feel the need to
> > keep condemning me and to invalidate the theories I give (to which you
> > agree)..why is that?
>
> Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis. As a teacher, I
> would like students to develop an intrinsic reward system, but I also
> realize that sometimes the first steps need to be rewarded extrinsically.
> Just as the house is not furnished until the walls are built, often the
> intrinsic drive does not develop until the fundamentals are in place. I
> have never received a full answer to my questio to you about just how to
> bring this intrinsic desire to learn to life in our students. Perhaps you
> could provide a step-by-step guide to achieving this.
A few thoughts come to mind. First, if you have not commented on my
thesis (the original post), it would make your comments off-
topic..right? Second, after claiming to having not commented on the
thesis of intrinsic motivation, you demand an answer to a question
about it. Finally, you have yet to answer why (if you agree with me)
you find the need to attack me.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
>
> Thereby proving that it is used LESS THAN 20% of "everywhere", which
> isn't hardly "almost everywhere".
>
> >Barnes and Noble sales rank of 30,000
> >is a better sales rank than most of the books on your list.
>
> Your claim is that it is used "almost everywhere", therefore it should
> have at least 80% of the market for textbooks in that subject. Yet it
> isn't even the top textbook in the subject, if it is only in 5th
> place.
>
> Meanwhile, it is only a textbook, and you've taken a comment in that
> textbook out of context and tried to use it to defend a thesis which
> is NOT the same as the textbook statement.
>
> >Still want to claim he would not be an authority for me to reference
> >here?
>
> I made no such claim. I said that YOUR claim, that his textbook is
> used "almost everywhere" is false. I also said that it was JUST a
> textbook and not an actual researcher. And I said that the comment
> quoted wasn't even particularly applicable to your thesis.
>
> lojbab
Ahh, so you are just being an ass about grammer and not replying on
topic. Got it.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > You didn't answer the question, again. Would students who succeeded
> > at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
> > who had not succeeded?
>
> It would depend on the nature of the next assignment - IMO. If it was
> exactly like the one that they succeeded / failed on - then maybe yes
> and maybe no. Why did the one student succeed? and why did the other
> fail? Sometimes failure is itself a strong motivation to try harder the
> next time.
>
> Martin
No. Let's stay on topic, if you can. You and Bob said that a teacher
can only provide extrinsic motivation and cannot produce intrinsic
motivation. Does the student above, who was pushed by the teacher to
succeed (extrinsic) and, after, feels proud of themselves
(intrinsic...efficacy) have intrinsic motivation to work harder than a
student that failed that assignment?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> My own son-6th grade-had the lead in the school play. He did a great job
> and enjoyed every moment of the rehearsals and play. Following the
> conclusions of performances, he dropped drama. He said -it was fun. I
> enjoyed it. I'm done with it.
>
> Real life example that happened this month.
> Steve
>
This, in fact, validates my point that intrinsic motivation is not
directly tied to extrinsic motivation (if so all would be
intrinsically motivated). Yet, can you deny that some students would
be more interested from the school play (given the same success)?
Thus...my point.
> Trying to determine causation is very difficult. It varies from student to
> student.
>
> Would you mind sharing why all of this is so important to you? You are
> pursuing this as if your idea isn't supported, the workd will crumble.
>
Actually, student efficacy and intrinsic motivation is well supported
in almost every educational arena. Do some reading and get educated
on it.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 23, 5:56 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>> > On Jan 22, 6:33 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>>
>> >>>It wouldn't matter.
>>
>> >>Sure it does.
>>
>> >>>My post was the desire for the intrinsic based
>> >>>upon the success of the students.
>>
>> >>"... intrinsic based upon the success ..." ?
>>
>> >>You know, maybe if you actually explained what sort of technique that
>> >>you want to do it might make better sense. Until then....
>>
>> >>> You said it was all marketing.
>>
>> >>No, I said it would be better to do marketing - or at least employ some
>> >>of the same techniques that they do in marketing.
...
>>
>> > At what point was marketing
>> > involved?
>>
>> You could apply marketing techniques to a number of elements for this
>> subject / project - the first that comes to mind is doing something to
>> maybe negate whatever it is that the student was afraid of.
>>
>> Martin
>
>No. Specifically, how was marketing involved in the given student's
>motivation, if it's all marketing?
Since NO ONE said that "it's all marketing" (other than you), and in
fact he explicitly corrected you regarding what he said (as quoted
above), I suggest that you stop playing the straw man game.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jan 24, 12:24 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0ae20768-54e1-42b4...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 23, 8:15 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>> >> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:d85f5583-1bc0-4e9a...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jan 22, 7:27 pm, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> >> messagenews:d933df92-d463-4bc9...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
...
You are the only liar in this discussion.
>1. Your theory of why the students were motivated was given (two theories in fact).
No teachermama did not present any theories.
>2. You admit to disagreeing with my theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
>Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
There is a difference between "referencing" and "commenting on".
>> > I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
>> > saying (my thesis of efficacy by success). Yet, you feel the need to
>> > keep condemning me and to invalidate the theories I give (to which you
>> > agree)..why is that?
>>
>> Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis. As a teacher, I
>> would like students to develop an intrinsic reward system, but I also
>> realize that sometimes the first steps need to be rewarded extrinsically.
>> Just as the house is not furnished until the walls are built, often the
>> intrinsic drive does not develop until the fundamentals are in place. I
>> have never received a full answer to my questio to you about just how to
>> bring this intrinsic desire to learn to life in our students. Perhaps you
>> could provide a step-by-step guide to achieving this.
>
>A few thoughts come to mind. First, if you have not commented on my
>thesis (the original post), it would make your comments off-
>topic..right?\
You don't decide what is "on-topic" dodo, especially when you
cross-post to 5 different newsgroups.
No one is obliged to comment on your silly theories.
> Second, after claiming to having not commented on the
>thesis of intrinsic motivation, you demand an answer to a question
>about it. Finally, you have yet to answer why (if you agree with me)
She said quite explicitly that she disagreed.
>you find the need to attack me.
Probably because you are acting with less maturity than the children
in her classes.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> textbook out of context and tried to use it to defend a thesis which
>> is NOT the same as the textbook statement.
>>
>> >Still want to claim he would not be an authority for me to reference
>> >here?
>>
>> I made no such claim. I said that YOUR claim, that his textbook is
>> used "almost everywhere" is false. I also said that it was JUST a
>> textbook and not an actual researcher. And I said that the comment
>> quoted wasn't even particularly applicable to your thesis.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>Ahh, so you are just being an ass about grammer
No. But if you insist, I will be an ass about spelling. The word is
"grammar".
I said that your comment was wrong. Not because of the grammar, but
because a book that is only the 5th best seller, and thus used in less
than 20% of classes, is NOT used "almost everywhere". That is an
error in quantification, and indeed a rather gross error.
>and not replying on topic.
You don't get to decide what is on topic, numbskull.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>>
>> > You didn't answer the question, again. Would students who succeeded
>> > at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
>> > who had not succeeded?
>>
>> It would depend on the nature of the next assignment - IMO. If it was
>> exactly like the one that they succeeded / failed on - then maybe yes
>> and maybe no. Why did the one student succeed? and why did the other
>> fail? Sometimes failure is itself a strong motivation to try harder the
>> next time.
>
>can only provide extrinsic motivation and cannot produce intrinsic
>motivation. Does the student above, who was pushed by the teacher to
>succeed (extrinsic)
Yes.
>and, after, feels proud of themselves
That was not a given in your original statement. If someone feels
proud of themselves, then that is their own intrinsic development, and
is entirely independent of anything the teacher does.
The teacher is not responsible for the student's emotions; the student
is. Some students will respond to success with pride. Others will
feel pride at having failed, if they are playing games. You for
example, are an utter failure in almost every thread you start, but
you still obviously feel unseemly pride in your postings as if you had
actually accomplished something by blathering on Usenet.
lojbab
Rowley
> On Jan 23, 6:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You didn't answer the question, again. Would students who succeeded
>>>at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
>>>who had not succeeded?
>>
>>It would depend on the nature of the next assignment - IMO. If it was
>>exactly like the one that they succeeded / failed on - then maybe yes
>>and maybe no. Why did the one student succeed? and why did the other
>>fail? Sometimes failure is itself a strong motivation to try harder the
>>next time.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
> No. Let's stay on topic, if you can. You and Bob said that a teacher
> can only provide extrinsic motivation and cannot produce intrinsic
> motivation.
Sounds about right - do you disagree with that?
Personally, I think that you (the teacher) might be able to influence
the direction or focus of an individual's intrinsic motivation /
behavior. Ever hear of 'priming'?
> Does the student above, who was pushed by the teacher to
> succeed (extrinsic) and, after, feels proud of themselves
> (intrinsic...efficacy) have intrinsic motivation to work harder than a
> student that failed that assignment?
Depends on the individual student - IMO. And actually, wouldn't a
student motivated to do better by failure of a previous assignment be a
better example of intrinsic motivation than one motivated by success?
Either way - both assignment outcomes could be consider external stimuli.
Martin
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
Rowley
It was your scenario teacher, you tell me if she/he used any marketing
techniques. For instance, how did the teacher set up the assignment? How
did they present it to the students? Do you have a mock-up of the lesson
plan that was used or any of the handouts or other material? Did the
teacher collect any data on student interest prior to making the
assignment and adjust what they did based on any of that data?
Martin
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b895f44c-04e5-4db9...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I did not present any theories--I presented some observations about a
specific group of children that I work with. YOU want me to accept your
theories whole hog amd agree with you about what motivates a specific group
of children that you have never met.
That will not happen, because you are incorrect in your long-distance
assessment.
2. You admit to disagreeing with my
> theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
> Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
I did not comment at all on your original post. My first post was several
days into the thread. And I asked the same question I have been asking all
along. How, specifically, so you instill intrinsic motivation into
students? You've yet to really answer the question. You have said that
success will increase intrinsic motivation. So, then, how do you provide
success without using any sort of extrinsic motivation?
>
>>
>>
>> > I'll note that your posts are, on average, saying the same thing I am
>> > saying (my thesis of efficacy by success). Yet, you feel the need to
>> > keep condemning me and to invalidate the theories I give (to which you
>> > agree)..why is that?
>>
>> Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis. As a teacher, I
>> would like students to develop an intrinsic reward system, but I also
>> realize that sometimes the first steps need to be rewarded extrinsically.
>> Just as the house is not furnished until the walls are built, often the
>> intrinsic drive does not develop until the fundamentals are in place. I
>> have never received a full answer to my questio to you about just how to
>> bring this intrinsic desire to learn to life in our students. Perhaps
>> you
>> could provide a step-by-step guide to achieving this.
>
> A few thoughts come to mind. First, if you have not commented on my
> thesis (the original post), it would make your comments off-
> topic..right?
I did not respond to your original post. And threads have a way of
transmuting with time. Surely you do not think you are the boss of the
thread just because you started it.
Second, after claiming to having not commented on the
> thesis of intrinsic motivation, you demand an answer to a question
> about it. Finally, you have yet to answer why (if you agree with me)
> you find the need to attack me.
Kenneth, it seems that you see everything in black and white. Just because
I feel than intrinsic motivation is more to be desired than extrinsic
motivation, and that success breeds success does not mean that I "agree with
you." You have yet to answer my questions about how you achieve what you
believe to be so important.
teachrmama
Are you going to post some suggested readings?
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Bob. You really need to start doing research before you start
posting. You are making a fool of yourself. Marketing has been one
of the key discussions between him and me.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
READ my words. How was marketing involved in the given student's
motivation (not the previous assignment upon which it was built)?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b895f44c-04e5-4db9...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Your words...
"My reading students in the afternoon (grades 1-3, struggling readers)
are
motivated by the thought of going on to the next level. It is amazing
how
hard they are willing to work just to get that next file folder of
stories.
I see it as a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. But,
whatever is, it works, and that is my main concern. =c) "
You are going to tell me that your opinions about why they are
motivated is NOT theories? What's the difference between opinion and
theory to you?
>
> 2. You admit to disagreeing with my
>
> > theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
> > Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
>
> I did not comment at all on your original post. My first post was several
> days into the thread. And I asked the same question I have been asking all
> along. How, specifically, so you instill intrinsic motivation into
> students? You've yet to really answer the question. You have said that
> success will increase intrinsic motivation. So, then, how do you provide
> success without using any sort of extrinsic motivation?
>
>
Your words (which you clipped to cover yourself)...
"Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis"
You didn't claim to have not commented on my original post. You
claimed to have not commented on my thesis, which you admit, now, to
doing.
Thank you for reiterating my thesis, again, as your own (even though
you apparently are not agreeing with me). I wonder what part of my
thesis you disagree with, then?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
It was my thread. I think I'd know what was on topic to my post. Or,
I guess I could talk about abortion and gay marriage here and call it
on topic, since (by your standard) YOU don't determine the topic,
either.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 6:03 pm, Rowley <industry3dREM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> >>>You didn't answer the question, again. Would students who succeeded
> >>>at something be equally motivated for the next assignment as someone
> >>>who had not succeeded?
>
> >>It would depend on the nature of the next assignment - IMO. If it was
> >>exactly like the one that they succeeded / failed on - then maybe yes
> >>and maybe no. Why did the one student succeed? and why did the other
> >>fail? Sometimes failure is itself a strong motivation to try harder the
> >>next time.
>
> >>Martin
>
> > No. Let's stay on topic, if you can. You and Bob said that a teacher
> > can only provide extrinsic motivation and cannot produce intrinsic
> > motivation.
>
> Sounds about right - do you disagree with that?
>
> Personally, I think that you (the teacher) might be able to influence
> the direction or focus of an individual's intrinsic motivation /
> behavior. Ever hear of 'priming'?
So, now you are arguing with yourself in the same post?
>
> > Does the student above, who was pushed by the teacher to
> > succeed (extrinsic) and, after, feels proud of themselves
> > (intrinsic...efficacy) have intrinsic motivation to work harder than a
> > student that failed that assignment?
>
> Depends on the individual student - IMO. And actually, wouldn't a
> student motivated to do better by failure of a previous assignment be a
> better example of intrinsic motivation than one motivated by success?
> Either way - both assignment outcomes could be consider external stimuli.
>
> Martin
>
You are in direct contradiction with most of the educational
establishment that believes in Intrinsic motivation as a separate (and
unconnected) motivation. You are also in contradiction with Bob and
teachermama on this thread, who both claim intrinsic motivation DOES
exist apart from external stimulous (but cannot be counted on or
directed...see Bob's claim of self-learning and teachermama's words on
the subject in the thread above).
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:dad5bc76-e4b9-4886...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Just look up efficacy in most publications, but, since you claim to
support the idea of intrinsic motivation, you don't need me to tell
you that.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
teachrmama
A theory would be able to be applied in a more generalized way. My
observations of the students are based on my working closely with them--not
on some objective "theory" that I would then try to force down other
people's throats on a newsgroup like others who shall remain nameless seem
to feel they have the right to do. You, for example, seem to feel that you
have a better grasp of what is motivating my students (that you have never
met, btw) than I do--all based on your pet theory.
>
>>
>> 2. You admit to disagreeing with my
>>
>> > theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
>> > Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
>>
>> I did not comment at all on your original post. My first post was
>> several
>> days into the thread. And I asked the same question I have been asking
>> all
>> along. How, specifically, so you instill intrinsic motivation into
>> students? You've yet to really answer the question. You have said that
>> success will increase intrinsic motivation. So, then, how do you provide
>> success without using any sort of extrinsic motivation?
>>
>>
>
> Your words (which you clipped to cover yourself)...
> "Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis"
>
> You didn't claim to have not commented on my original post. You
> claimed to have not commented on my thesis, which you admit, now, to
> doing.
No, actually, I am not. I am commenting on your refusal to answer questions
as to how to put into effect your pet theory. I am not even exactly sure
what your "thesis" is, since you refuse to answer questions, and only give
nasty retorts to those who try to engage in a discussion with you.
No, Kenneth, that is NOT your thesis. A number of people have agreed that
intrinsic is more to be desired than extrinsic. But you have yet to
describe how you put that "thesis" into play with students. Without an
action plan of some sort, it is just a bunch of empty works. Come on, get
real!!
teachrmama
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5cd688f3-6ce5-44a5...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You only get to choose what you post, Kenneth. Others can comment on and
diverge from any post as they see fit.
teachrmama
Huh? It is pretty brazen to claim I said such a thing, Kenneth, totally out
of any context. I have no idea what you are talking about.
teachrmama
Hmmmm....I claim to "support the idea of intrinsic motivation." <chuckle>
You really do take the cake, Kenneth.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > At what point was marketing
>> >> > involved?
>>
>> >> You could apply marketing techniques to a number of elements for this
>> >> subject / project - the first that comes to mind is doing something to
>> >> maybe negate whatever it is that the student was afraid of.
>>
>> >> Martin
>>
>> >No. Specifically, how was marketing involved in the given student's
>> >motivation, if it's all marketing?
>>
>> Since NO ONE said that "it's all marketing" (other than you), and in
>> fact he explicitly corrected you regarding what he said (as quoted
>> above), I suggest that you stop playing the straw man game.
>
>Bob. You really need to start doing research before you start
>posting.
I do.
>You are making a fool of yourself.
Not hardly.
>Marketing has been one of the key discussions between him and me.
It has been a word that he has used. But YOU haven't said anything
about it (in fact, I don't think you've really said anything in the
entire thread, since your initial post was pablum and everything since
then has been a gross exaggeration, or a loaded question attacking a
straw man of something someone else said).
With regard to marketing, you just keep asking about the silly claim
"it's all marketing" which Martin never made and specifically denied
claiming. That is not to say that he hasn't talked about marketing.
He just hasn't made the silly claim that you want him to defend.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
You won't read his. Why should he read yours.
>How was marketing involved in the given student's motivation
>(not the previous assignment upon which it was built)?
You just said: "upon which it was built". Being built upon is
certainly "involved".
You are trying to separate the two assignments, but they are
inseparable if the success in one led to the "motivation" for the
other.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>
No it isn't. No one owns a thread. No one owns a topic. No one owns
a newsgroup, much less 5 of them.
> I think I'd know what was on topic to my post.
Nobody cares what you think was on topic. In the chat newsgroup,
people talk about what they want to talk about, bearing in mind that
it is a group for teachers. No one is bound by what you think is the
"topic"
>Or, I guess I could talk about abortion and gay marriage here
You already have numerous times.
>and call it on topic, since (by your standard) YOU don't determine the topic,
>either.
I don't determine the topic. But common sense indicates having a
respect for the audience, which has usually indicated a range of
preferred-by-them topics by their choosing to subscribe to a newsgroup
with a particular name.
But if you wish to continue to show utter disrespect for your
audience, no one can stop you.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>establishment that believes in Intrinsic motivation as a separate (and
>unconnected) motivation.
You have NO CLUE what "most of the educational establishment"
believes.
You are having a discussion with several members of the educational
establishment (and a few outliers like myself)
>You are also in contradiction with Bob and
>teachermama on this thread, who both claim intrinsic motivation DOES
>exist apart from external stimulous
Actually, I never said such a thing (and it is "stimulus", BTW).
I will say that we can arbitrarily label some behaviors as evidencing
internal or external motivation. But since we hardly know everything
going on in our own head, we can't truly say that there is such a
thing as "internal motivation" that hasn't at some point been induced
from outside, making it really external.
It is possibly a useful abstraction to pretend that there are such
internal motivations, whether or not they exist, and to arbitrarily
say that they are "better".
But I am not even sure that they ARE "better" from the standpoint of
the educational system. They are great for the individual, and thus
for individual liberty and self-sufficiency. But the educational
system exists among other things to impart a certain body of knowledge
and understanding to the students regardless of the source of their
motivation.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> > Actually, student efficacy and intrinsic motivation is well supported
>> > in almost every educational arena. Do some reading and get educated
>> > on it.
>>
>> Are you going to post some suggested readings?
>
>Just look up efficacy in most publications,
Why should she? You want to discuss "efficacy"; I suggest that you
discuss it, and try to actually say something this time.
lojbab
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e7e4485a-9675-440c...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Your words: "My reading students in the afternoon (grades 1-3,
struggling readers) are motivated by the thought of going on to the
next level."
If this is not a theory, I proposed no theory either. We both are
just presenting opinions (if that is how you want to view it).
>
> >> 2. You admit to disagreeing with my
>
> >> > theory, while claiming to not have commented on the theory at all.
> >> > Tell me how you disagree with something without referencing it.
>
> >> I did not comment at all on your original post. My first post was
> >> several
> >> days into the thread. And I asked the same question I have been asking
> >> all
> >> along. How, specifically, so you instill intrinsic motivation into
> >> students? You've yet to really answer the question. You have said that
> >> success will increase intrinsic motivation. So, then, how do you provide
> >> success without using any sort of extrinsic motivation?
>
> > Your words (which you clipped to cover yourself)...
> > "Again, I have not particularly commented on your thesis"
>
> > You didn't claim to have not commented on my original post. You
> > claimed to have not commented on my thesis, which you admit, now, to
> > doing.
>
> No, actually, I am not. I am commenting on your refusal to answer questions
> as to how to put into effect your pet theory. I am not even exactly sure
> what your "thesis" is, since you refuse to answer questions, and only give
> nasty retorts to those who try to engage in a discussion with you.
>
How do you know you have not commented on my thesis, if you don't know
whast it is? And, according to you, I don't have a theory, only an
opinion (just as yourself).
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com