In Daniel Pink's thought exchange, he presents science backed information that shows that although money is a motivator, it does not promote real improvement or innovation within an organization. He explains that people want to feel like people. Pay them enough so that money is not an issue and creativity can occur. As a teacher in a high need demographic I see the effects of this on a daily basis and I could not agree more with Pink's words. Furthermore, science has supported this human behavior. It is evident to me that in order to expect academic success from our students, conformity and linear thinking cannot be the sole motivator in our classrooms (Robinson, 2010).
Students that I have traditionally taught come to school with preconceptions about the world and lenses that have been shaped by their experiences. Unfortunately, many of these experiences are not positive and have been molded by traumatic instances. When students come into my classroom, it is unfair to expect a particular mindset of creativity when their basic needs are not met. Maybe they are hungry and arrived too late for breakfast. Maybe they have family issues that are ongoing at home. Either way, what they are thinking of most, is not how to learn how to solve a problem that involves area or get the best scores for a standardized test. These personal setbacks limit their freedom of thought. Additionally, the idea of success (based on exams) lowers motivation to do well. Maybe there are rewards for based on the level of mastery for the topic. Those who do not score well and do not understand get left behind and those who do well, will continue to do well. This makes it more and more difficult for those that are in need to find the motivation to keep going when their goal to reach is so far out of grasp.
I agree with Sir Ken Robinson and his idea of an end to linear learning and conformity. Speaking for my demographic, it is not fair. Learning the way to solve a problem does not help the students living situation. It is important, yes, but not more important than what happens when they leave the school campus. However, if their needs were taken away and they had the freedom to focus on their interests for mastery with some autonomy for learning, who knows what could come of it. Although the study described by Daniel Pink occurred within the adult realm, it is relevant for young students. Creativity can occur when needs are met. Autonomy and passions must ensue in order to produce great learning and innovative creativity and thinking. This will surely lead to mastery of standards and to the realistic attainment of goals.
I aspire to make sure this part of the learning process is met in order to foster and cultivate the garden of education for my students. This may be obvious, but it takes a toll on the learning environment. This is a strong part of my learning philosophy and will continue to affect the way I teach. I want students to be successful, but they must be able to define their own success. My idea of success should not affect the person each student wants to become. I should create an environment that is nurturing to their needs and able to push them forward in their pursuits of growth and learning goals. It is difficult, but my students deserve it.
Resources
TED. (2010, May). Bring on the Learning Revolution| Sir Ken Robinson[Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I&feature=youtu.be
RSA Animate. (2010, April). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=youtu.be
Comments
Post a Comment