In Daniel Pink’s book Drive, Pink talks extensively about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
An extrinsically motivated person is someone who is motivated by an external factor, usually money or some other form of good that isn’t necessarily related to a person’s occupation. For example, a doctor who is in it for the money is extrinsically motivated by the prospect of making money, not necessarily caring for people’s well being, or a student who is in it for the grade doesn’t necessarily learn, but does what is necessary for a grade.
An intrinsically motivated person is someone who is motivated by an internal factor, usually some sort of satisfaction or passion of what they get to do for themselves. For example, a programmer that works on an open source program that is freely distributed online is in it because of their love for the technology or the enjoyment of programming, not necessarily to make a name for themselves or earn great sums of money.
What’s interesting is that the book points to research that shows over and over that intrinsically motivated people always win out over extrinsically motivated people. Pink suggests that the ways that businesses and schools have been motivating employees and students are far from optimal, and by switching things around to encourage intrinsic motivators, we can take our economies and future to a whole new level.
“The problem with making an extrinsic reward the only destination that matters is that some people will choose the quickest route there, even if it means taking the low road. Indeed, most of the scandals and misbehavior that have seemed endemic to modern life involve shortcuts.” – Drive, Daniel Pink
What’s This Got To Do with Academic Integrity?
A problem that many schools face on a regular basis is academic integrity. Plagiarism and cheating not only causes harm to students, but the reputation of an institution as a whole. And as you probably know, the nearly unanimous and almost logical solution to academic dishonesty in schools is some form of punishment, whether it be detention, being dropped from a class, or expulsion.
But let me propose that by placing a punishment doesn’t actually make students less inclined to cheat, it probably causes more problems. Furthermore, along the same lines of Pink’s philosophy, I believe there is a much simpler and easier method to reduce academic dishonesty that would also positively impact learning and the education environment overall.
Let’s start by considering the very issue of academic dishonesty. Instead of dealing with the issue through reprimands, let’s consider what actually causes students to be academically dishonest in the first place, and maybe by dealing with those issues, academic dishonesty will be a thing of the past.
A student is academically dishonest when he or she chooses to take a shortcut and cheat off of somebody or something else over doing the work him or herself.
Why would a student make that decision?
That decision ultimately points to the fact that the student is more motivated by the prospect of getting a good grade than the prospect of learning the material. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the student is not interested in the material, it just means that the student is more interested in the grade than they are in the material. It may be that a student’s financial aid is dependent on their grades, or their college prospects are dependent on their grades, or even that their reputation is dependent on the grades they get.
Applying some principles from Drive, we find that academic dishonesty shows that a student is motivated extrinsically by the hope of getting a good grade more so than the hope of learning something they are passionate about.
Punishing students for being academically dishonest is placing cookies and vegetables in front of a child and punishing them severely for reaching for the cookies first.
Therefore, by putting grades, tests, and standardization around a subject, schools can actually turn something that a student is passionate about into something that a student dreads because their initial passion and intrinsic motivation for a subject quickly gets overtaken by the extrinsic motivation that schools place upon the student. (this happens far more often than you would think)
And if that isn’t bad enough already, enforcing rules against academic dishonesty is pretty much punishing students for a problem that the school caused, making it nearly a self fulfilling prophecy that people will almost naturally want to cheat and plagiarize. Punishing students for being academically dishonest is placing cookies and vegetables in front of a child and punishing them severely for reaching for the cookies first.
It simply doesn’t make sense.
That’s why I always roll my eyes and let out a sigh when I have to sit through yet another academic integrity presentation.
Instead of punishing the student for a natural result of extrinsic motivation, why don’t we place more emphasis on students being intrinsically motivated, and set up a grading system that doesn’t interfere with a student’s intrinsic motivation?
April 4th, 2014 found me on the edge of my seat listening to Randy Komisar, a serial entrepreneur and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers. He talked about entrepreneurship, venture capital, and other current trends and aspects in the market.
Over the past couple decades, Sand Hill Road has built the foundation for the Silicon Valley we know today, providing the financial footing for companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook to change the world and making millionaires appear all over the silicon valley. Growing up not twenty minutes away from where all of this history took place, BrightEyes 2014 provided me not only with an opportunity to learn more about the venture capital and technology space, but also my own hometown.
“There is no straight line from idea to success.” – Randy Komisar (tweet that)
Listening to Randy was surreal. Every word he spoke was a piece of candy, inspiring and exciting the kid inside of me. Never would I have expected to be sitting in a historical venture capital firm at the age of 19, personally asking questions and interacting with a venture capitalist.
BrightEyes 2014 is a study tour that gives students an opportunity to learn about the tech and VC space in a very practical way by flying students out to the heart of the industry to meet and interact with the very people at the forefront of these industries. Run by Tiffany Stone, a 2012 UCSD grad, this study tour provided a huge supplement and a great deal of inspiration for my own education.
BrightEyes gave me the opportunity to interact with the people behind companies such as Boost VC, Nexgate, Lyft, Bitpay, AirBnB, Quixey, Andreessen Horowitz, Yahoo, Kleiner Perkins, Nest, Facebook, Sierra Ventures, Dorm Room Fund, and Amazon.
The first day started with a meeting with Adam Draper and Brayton Williams, the leaders behind Boost VC. We walked into a building with a gutted Tesla Model S turned into a desk, and walked down the stairs into a small conference room where we plopped down on beanbags.
We talked about many things, but among them included conversations about Bitcoin, where it currently is and where it’s headed. The conversation offered a pretty good case for the future of bitcoin, and made me reconsider cryptocurrencies as a whole. Maybe it’s onto something.
Either way, all the talk about upcoming disruptive ideas really struck a chord in me. It made me wonder not only about what the future is going to look like, but how I would take place in the whole orchestration of these evolving industries. AirBnB showed us the evolution of the hospitality industry, Lyft showed us the evolution of the transportation industry, Facebook showed us the evolution of social industries, etc etc.
For those of you who have known me or read my blog for a while, you’ll know that education is a big thing on my mind, and that I’m always thinking about ways to build a better system of learning that empowers people to truly reach their potential. Meeting all of these entrepreneurs has helped me reignite my passion for learning and education, but has also given me ideas on how to practically make a difference in the world that we live in. Just because the education space has historically been a very difficult market to bring change to doesn’t mean that I’m not going to give it everything that I’ve got.
The entire trip, from dawn to dusk, was full of conversations about building companies, developing teams, and changing the world. We had the privilege of staying at a home listed on AirBnB called Village Looky run by a very hospitable and smart entrepreneur Heigo Paartalu. Everywhere from meetings with companies to in between transportation time to meals to our stay at Villa Looky, the conversations were all nothing short of eye opening and inspiring.
One common thread that came up repeatedly when talking about the characteristics of a successful entrepreneurs and companies, was idea of “scrappiness”. Scrappiness is essentially the grit, tenacity, and endurance an individual gives to the work that they do. Scrappy people take big risks because they know exactly what they care about and exactly what they believe in.
While driving on the way to a meeting at Stanford on a perfect California day, Tiffany said “I want you to know yourself”, speaking it as if it was the secret that would make me successful.
Suddenly, it all made sense. The most powerful thing I would get out of all the interactions on this trip wasn’t answers to specific industry problems or forecasts, but a chance to build my personal network and get to know and understand myself. It was a chance to have conversations to understand my passions, my strengths, and my weaknesses. It was a chance to learn how to communicate different aspects of who I am in different situations.
And in a strange but practical way, BrightEyes was the missing piece that I had been longing for in my educational experience. It was a study tour that helped give much more context behind the things that I am learning in school, and more vision for my education. Every student should be given the chance to interact and network with people in industries.
The most powerful thing I would get out of all the interactions on this trip wasn’t answers to specific industry problems or forecasts, but a chance to build my personal network and get to know and understand myself.
Thanks BrightEyes for the amazing life-changing experience!
The role and ability for schools to provide an all encompassing education is diminishing, and I don’t believe that it’s necessarily the fault of schools.
But regardless of the role of traditional education in our world today, self-education is becoming increasingly evident and necessary. Schools aren’t going to die out anytime soon, but we are entering into a world where people who are self-educated are a lot more interesting. In part, this is the case because of the increasing diversity of roles and specializations.
Learning to self-educate is no easy endeavor, especially if you are used to years of schooling in which there is always someone telling you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. But if there is any time to learn to self-educate, the time is now. There are more tools and resources available to the average person than what was available to presidents decades ago, and the barrier of entry into virtually every industry is lower than it has ever been. The internet has allowed a level of communication that can propel indie filmmakers, budding writers, and emergent musicians to connect and publicize like never before.
Connecting the dots isn’t just about learning how to move a pencil between dots in a coloring book, but the concept isn’t too far off from such.
Connecting the dots is about taking your own initiative to draw lines between things in your life and in the world to create a picture that is meaningful and purposeful.
Paul does a great job of illustrating how a person can get started in self education, and different ways to continue your growth as a person. I highly recommend Paul Jun writes in his new book, looking into the insights that Paul has to offer.
Even though I have been writing about education for a couple of years and have been extensively involved in Student Voice, attending Deeper Learning felt like I was diving head first into completely foreign territory.
First of all, it was a conference geared toward educators, which made me (probably the only person under 30) stick out like a sore thumb. But nevertheless, I used that to my advantage to highlight and speak out on the importance of student voice in education. I met a lot of extremely significant, wonderful, and inspiring individuals.
I attended workshops talking about metacognitive variables to student success, project based learning, design thinking in education, and computing in education, all of which helped provide me more insight and perspective into the way that teachers run their classrooms. Through all these conversations and workshops, I was inspired after realizing that many teachers care about their students and put more effort into their careers than I had previously imagined.
However, even though many of the workshops and sessions mentioned the power of student voice and choice, there were no in depth conversations on how to practically and effectively listen and implement what students have to say in the classroom.
In many ways I felt like the conversations were beating around the core issue of students not being able to take ownership of their education. If we take a step back and look at education through the same lens of a business, one of the core aspects to consider is the audience. When we begin to ask who the audience should be when it comes to education, the answer should be obvious: families of students and more importantly, the students. Don’t you think that if education is truly for the students, than we should be listening to what students need and want?
The fact that students don’t have too much of a voice in their education points to a couple of things. Firstly, it makes me question who the actual audience for education currently is, and unfortunately, by looking at the stakeholders and money in education, it’s certainly isn’t the students or even teachers.
Of course, this wasn’t a conference geared toward education policy or political bureaucracy, but it does get you thinking about the effects of students not having a voice on a classroom level, especially when it is reflected in their learning.
I’ve never learned how to study, and I’ve never been particularly good at it.
And by studying, I don’t mean learning; I’m plenty good at that. I mean cramming knowledge into your head that you don’t really have a reason to care about in order to regurgitate it on an exam. I have no clue how to do that.
It’s amazing how much people are able to get done in the time spent procrastinating on studying. All of a sudden chores like cleaning the bathroom have a new appeal to them, because suddenly it appears more fun than what you should be doing.
The education crisis isn’t about how the United States is doing on PISA scores, it’s about students not being engaged in affordable, relevant, communal, collaborative, effective, and practical venues of learning.
I prefer learning over studying. Learning is about connecting the dots. It’s about synthesizing information given in a way that is relevant and practical to each person as an individual. It’s about an individual taking raw material and working with it in a way to build something unique, not something that’s been done hundreds of times before.
Studying is about adhering to a standard, learning is about failing. Studying is done in order to learn material so that people know the right answer, while learning is about trying new things and growing from whatever the outcome is.
Learning is about the process, studying is about the result. We have enough people posing as know-it-alls because they are afraid of being real and sharing their failures. It’s not their fault; schools train people to stand up and speak down on people, as if they are talking from a greater place.
Studying gets you through school. Learning gets you through life (Tweet That). I think I’d rather get better at learning than studying.
Last week, Collegeboard announced that they would be making changes to their flagship exam, the SAT. Among these changes include shifting the scale back to 1600 instead of 2400, making the essay optional, and changing the questions so that they pull from a broader knowledge base. And to help students prepare for this new exam, Collegeboard is partnering with Khan Academy to provide free test prep resources for students.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great. It’s great that Collegeboard is recognizing the enormous pitfalls of the current SAT and that they are taking steps toward changing how their test is done. But it’s insufficient for what colleges and universities need, and nowhere near sufficient for what students need in terms of a proper and holistic assessment of who they are.
Standardized tests have become “far too disconnected from the work of our high schools,” too stressful, and not a very good indicator of a college-ready student. (tweet that)
Collegeboard states that standardized tests have become “far too disconnected from the work of our high schools,” too stressful, and not a very good indicator of a college-ready student. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but I fail to see how the changes to the SAT actually resolves the issues stated. Even with the proposed changes to the test, the test is still a standardized test that outputs a numerical, “standardized” score.
What’s the Problem with Standardization?
Our modern world is all about standardization. Companies use standard metrics in order to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of their business and employees, governments use standards in order to enforce regulations that help keep a nation in order, and the current trend toward big data is a huge industry for potential growth simply because everything can be tracked.
The train of thought goes something like “Well it works for evaluating performance, products, and services, let’s apply the same thing to evaluating students!”
But what people fail to realize is the difference between using a standard to evaluate work and using a standard to evaluate people (tweet that). People aren’t products. People can’t simply be treated as another data point on a graph, because people are so much more than that. Humans are social creatures that adapt, mold, and transform into different personalities, shapes, and emotions. People were never made to be compared, they were made to work together, share ideas, and live together on earth.
People fail to realize is the difference between using a standard to evaluate work and using a standard to evaluate people. (tweet that)
In the culture and era of the world that we live in today, collaboration is the only way industries will move forward. CEOs and business leaders talk at great lengths about how beyond the work of the company and the business model, there has to be a solid team behind what the company is doing. One of the greatest challenges in the corporate world today is how to hire people that not only have the proper skill set, but are also a culture fit into their company, because collaboration and teamwork are the building blocks of a company or business.
However, a standardized test that’s built to compare one high school student to another breeds competition rather than collaboration. No wonder so many business leaders complain about the communication and teamwork skills of recent college graduates; they were raised in a system that teaches the exact opposite.
What Can We Do About This?
So now the question becomes “how can we create an assessment that captures the essence of a student in a way that doesn’t compare students to each other in a competitive way?”
The first step is pretty obvious; We have to get rid of the numerical score.
The purpose of an effective and sufficient assessment of students is to encapsulate a good representation of who this student is, complete with a holistic picture of all of their strengths and weaknesses compiled into a way that someone reading the results can interpret who their are and what their strengths are without actually spending time with them.
The first step is pretty obvious; We have to get rid of the numerical score.
What if instead of a test score, the test provided a spectrum of different areas representing a student’s strengths and weaknesses, listing out attributes such as creativity, work ethic, leadership, communication, background, learning aptitude, grit, entrepreneurialism, resourcefulness, etc?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and will write my proposal for a new testing model in a future post.
What would a test like that look like? and how would it help students have a different approach?