Go figure a business lecture would be very relevant to us as teachers. Is it because we run our classrooms like a business. I think we do. Let us examine…We give our students daily jobs; they have responsibilities and expectations to do that job in a given amount of time. We give them assigned spaces similar to cubicles. We let them walk around periodically but they still belong in one particular seat, which is where we expect to find them. They have specific work hours, lunch, and are expected to be to "meetings" on time and prepared. Kids do not set their schedules, we the teachers or bosses do. We have meetings on the rug at certain times, we do math at a certain time, they may go outside at certain times, etc. We manage their days. There is a code of conduct. Like a professional company, there are acceptable behaviors and consequences if you deviate. We expect productivity. They must produce or there are consequences such as calling their parents or staying inside to finish work, similar to staying late to work on something for your boss. I feel like I could go on forever, but I will not. I would be happy to debate this issue with any of my colleagues. It is not nice, friendly, or even politically correct to even suggest teachers are like bosses, kids are like workers/employees, and schools are not businesses, but they are if you break them down. It does not mean there are not great teachers; there are great bosses after all. It just means we are subconsciously showing students how the career world works. What they will be facing in the future; we are preparing them for work. This should sound familiar to economists and any Marxists. As a teacher, I am not proud of this but Dan Pink's lecture really opened my eyes to the similarities.
Everything he said about businesses and rewards is applicable to my classroom. Do we not use the carrot and stick system? Sure we do. In the simplest form of this system we offer candy, when candy no longer works as a motivator, we start talking about bad grades on their report cards and what will their parents say. Dan Pink makes the connection that rewards/incentives often achieve the opposite result as we expected. We all have the kids that could care less if he gets the lollipop on Friday for doing his job. He/she could care less if recess is spent reading a book indoors. What do we do as teachers then? The problem is no one knows. That is why there is a huge industry of motivational tools, tips, programs, and workshops directed at parents and teachers to motivate children.
Additionally, Dan talks about motivation dulling creativity and the thinking process. This reminded me of the Ken Robinson talk about schools killing creativity. If you dangle a carrot in front of a kid, he will focus on the carrot, and do whatever is necessary to get the carrot and nothing more. He will try to find the easiest and quickest way to get the carrot, even if he has to use shortcuts or cheat. I think this is true. This is not because he/she is a bad kid, but his focus and thinking has been narrowed to getting that carrot. That was Dan Pink's point. Motivation needs to be much more than an object, or a sweeter carrot than the one used before. Motivation needs to be specific to each child and needs to be intrinsic. If the ideal situation is to motivate each child individually, why don't we as teachers do just that? Why, because it is easier said then done!
No comments:
Post a Comment