What motivates people to learn—or do most things for that matter—has often been the focus of research and is a topic that is well understood in the psychological literature. While people are often motivated to perform by the tangible rewards they hope to receive, the lure of extrinsic rewards does not come close to the appeal intrinsic rewards—reflected in a sense of accomplishment, mastery and self satisfaction—hold for people following a job well done. After all, one component of self-esteem is a feeling of competence and a belief that one can master his world.
Although many believe people are good at what they like, it is more the case that people like what they are good at. It is the rare person who willingly pursues activities with which he has experienced little, if any, meaningful success. To become absorbed in an activity, invest emotionally in a task and experience “the flow” that motivates, people have to have a reasonable, but not an absolute, expectation of success.
Education places a multitude of demands on students, all of whom have their own strengths, talents and passions that present day instruction does not necessarily address. How do teachers reconcile what they need to teach with what their students bring to the table? While educators talk about tailoring instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners, it is unclear how much differentiated instruction takes place. Traditional in its approach, education looks to foster in students strong reading, written language and math skills—as well it should. Still, what happens to the nontraditional students who demonstrate poor verbal and math skills but display well developed nonverbal skills? How does education help them experience “the flow?”
While instruction may need to be differentiated, the result should be the same—a sense of accomplishment and success experienced by all.
Although many believe people are good at what they like, it is more the case that people like what they are good at. It is the rare person who willingly pursues activities with which he has experienced little, if any, meaningful success. To become absorbed in an activity, invest emotionally in a task and experience “the flow” that motivates, people have to have a reasonable, but not an absolute, expectation of success.
Education places a multitude of demands on students, all of whom have their own strengths, talents and passions that present day instruction does not necessarily address. How do teachers reconcile what they need to teach with what their students bring to the table? While educators talk about tailoring instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners, it is unclear how much differentiated instruction takes place. Traditional in its approach, education looks to foster in students strong reading, written language and math skills—as well it should. Still, what happens to the nontraditional students who demonstrate poor verbal and math skills but display well developed nonverbal skills? How does education help them experience “the flow?”
While instruction may need to be differentiated, the result should be the same—a sense of accomplishment and success experienced by all.
2 comments:
I certainly agree that traditional education denies many students a flow experience because it does not tailor [even somewhat] the curriculum to meet their interests/abilities. Giving each child a chance to experience "flow" might make more likely then chance that they will get themselves there in the future...perhaps even in an area they had not foreseen.
Relatedly, are intrinsic rewards more lasting than extrinsic rewards. It seems to lend itself to a breadth of outside rewards vs. depth of internal rewards debate? I wonder which we should focus on more, or if there should be a balance...or if it depends on the age of students.
This brings to light the question I've heard for a while: When should schools allow students to pursue what they like vs. "force" them to do things that we know they'll need as adults?
Post a Comment