As 2008 approaches, please give us some suggestions for motivation-related issues you would like to see covered in this blog in the new year.

We have made a commitment to providing more information, more regularly on this blog. And we would like your help in maintaining that momentum. Your insights and suggestions will be an invaluable source of material for us.

Tell us what you think by putting your suggestions in the comments section of this entry or email them to me at kbushweller@epe.org.

Thanks for your help. And have a Happy New Year!

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 9:37 AM | Permalink | 9 Comments | Recommend

There's an AP story posted today that pretty much sums up my frustrations as a high school student in a high-performing, affluent school district. Here's the basic gist of it:

"In most of the [Washington, D.C. area], a score of 90 or higher will earn a student the top mark. But in Fairfax County, (Va.) it takes a score of at least 94."

It's this kind of discrepancy that really irrated me when I was a student. Although I did not attend school in Fairfax County, my school district used the same grading scale as the one described in the article. Even between schools in the same district, it seemed to me that grading scales fluctuated significantly. It didn't seem fair that so much of my grade-point average depended on factors over which I had little control--what school I attended, what classes I took, and which teachers I had.

I wish I could have taken the advice of Robert J. Massa, vice president for enrollment at Dickinson College, and just "chill[ed] out about grades," but I still feel that's a hard request when you are one of hundreds of hard-working students in a county where almost everyone goes to college, competing for a limited number of spots at a state university.

But there's an interesting take on this in a similar article in the Washington Post, which says that grades are actually a better indicator of success in college than standardized tests. Also, grades are "much less closely correlated with student socioeconomic characteristics than standardized tests," say two researchers. I have to admit, reading that point of view has made me question my stance on grades in school. After all, it's much easier to point a finger at the system than to ask myself whether I should have worked a little harder or studied a little bit more.

What do you think? Do the discrepancies in grading scales between districts put some students at a disadvantage when they're applying for scholarships or vying for spots in colleges? Or is it a good indicator of student effort and achievement? Do the differences in the scales effectively account for varying economic and environmental factors? Or do they simply give some students an unfair advantage?

Posted by Katie Ash at 12:40 PM | Permalink | 12 Comments | Recommend

I was searching YouTube today for motivation-related material and I found this college commencement speech by Steve Jobs of Apple Computer. Sure, it's a little dated (2005), but it's an excellent speech about bouncing back from setbacks, the power of curiosity and creativity, and the importance of following a dream. It might offer some food for thought as the second half of the 2007-08 school year approaches. Check it out.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Happy Holidays to all Motivation Matters readers! Now that you have completely exhausted yourself getting packages out to all your family and friends, we hope the holiday break re-energizes you to seek out new and better ways to motivate students and educators to improve schools.

We would like to leave you with a video we found on YouTube showcasing an elementary student's classroom presentation of a pop-up Christmas card. This boy was obviously motivated to do this school assignment. Check out the video here:

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 12:17 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

I read an article this morning called "Collaboration--Rather than Competition--For Quality Learning" by Marvin Marshall, author of the book Discipline Without Stress, Punishments, or Rewards. As the title suggests, the article makes the argument that learning is enhanced by a collaborative setting, rather than the traditionally competitive one that is used in most classrooms. Marshall says that competition creates more losers than winners, and as a result, actually reduces student motivation.

I agree with some of the things Marshall says in this article--I shy away from competition at all costs--but to me, there's a difference between competition in which you compare yourself to everyone else, and competition against oneself--a distinction I don't think Marshall makes. While competition between classmates may, in some cases, foster a hostile environment and decrease motivation by labeling some students as better than others, competition against oneself may encourage some students to strive for a higher grade or a more comprehensive understanding of a concept.

And while I look upon collaboration fondly in theory, I worry about how it often manifests itself in practice. I'm sure we can all recall being assigned to a group project in which one of the group members tries to scrape by doing as little work as possible. Or inversely, a group in which one person insists on doing all the work alone to ensure a high grade.

Regardless, Marshall's argument is intriguing and definitely worth thinking about. How does competition affect motivation? Is the disappointment of losing really enough to discourage a student from working hard in the future? Does an emphasis on collaboration help students be more engaged in their lessons and increase learning? Or does it make it too easy for some students to skate by on the hard work of others?

Posted by Katie Ash at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I know we've talked about how rewards affect student motivation many times before, but this article in the American Educator approaches the question "should learning be its own reward?" from the perspective of cognitive science. It is probably the most comprehensive article about using rewards to motivate students I've read so far, so if this is something you're interested in, I highly recommend that you check it out. Here's an excerpt:

Concrete rewards can motivate students to attend class, to behave well, or to produce better work. But if you are not careful in choosing what you reward, they can prompt students to produce shoddy work--and worse, they can cause students to actually like school subjects less. The important guidelines are these: Don't use rewards unless you have to, use rewards for a specific reason, and use them for a limited time.

He goes on to address the question from three different angles: Is a rewards system immoral? Does it condition kids to have unrealistic expectations? And does it actually decrease motivation?

What he talks about reminds me of my experiences teaching a study skills class in college. It was a 10-week course, taught by peer instructors, that all students on academic probation were required to take in order to stay in school. Each week I, and a fellow peer instructor, went over a different skill that could help the students improve their grades--time management, goal setting, etc. Sometimes the lessons were pretty dry, so we decided to reward our class with treats at the end of the day if they paid attention and participated in discussion. What we found was that our students came to expect the reward, and if it wasn't promised to them at the beginning of class, they were much less likely to take the class seriously. And these were college students! By the end of the course, I wished we had never started rewarding them in the first place.

Posted by Katie Ash at 10:10 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

An AP story about a recent study by the Baltimore-based nonprofit organization Advocates for Children and Youth links low performing schools with high principal turnover rates. The group, which examined schools in or near Baltimore, calls for incentives to keep principals in low achieving schools for longer periods of time with the hope that more experienced principals will improve academic performance, says the article.

There's a related article up today in the Rocky Mountain News about one principal who left her post at a high achieving middle school to work at the lowest-performing middle school in the state. Her leadership has resulted in the school moving to a "low" ranking, up from the "unsatisfactory" label it held before. The article goes on to talk about concerns from the school district and the teacher's union about the autonomy she is calling for in order to try more creative ways to further raise achievement in her school, but what I'm more interested in is what she did, and what she plans to do, to increase academic performance.

We've spent quite a bit of time talking about how teachers affect students' motivation, and even how society influences the way students approach learning, but we haven't talked much about the relationship between principals' leadership and how students learn.

What role do principals play in increasing academic performance and student motivation in their schools? What kinds of things can they do to help foster a high achieving environment? Would offering incentives for principals in low performing schools help raise test scores? Or would that actually stifle motivation by putting too strong an emphasis on grades, as Kathleen touched on in a blog entry back in July?

Posted by Katie Ash at 1:07 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

I woke up Sunday morning looking forward to a getting a jump on packing some Christmas gifts and watching my highly motivated New England Patriots continue their march toward an undefeated season.

But then my middle school son nearly made me choke on my coffee when he showed me the progress he had made toward completing his science project about animal and plant cells, an assignment he had mentioned in passing the day before. What little progress he had made! And how worried I looked!

Reading over the assignment, I realized he had a 10-15 hour work session ahead of him if he wanted to get it done. And that meant I had a 10-15 hour oversight session ahead of me in which I would have to push, prod, instruct, and encourage like a Marine-Corps boot camp instructor if there was any hope of completing this project.

After five hours of work (with a few short breaks), it was 3 p.m. and he was still a little shy of being halfway done. When I rejected his request to take another break and ordered him to "finish task 6 first," he pleaded, "Dad, if I don't take a break, I think I'm going to have a seizure!"

He was joking, of course. So I ignored his plea and he pushed ahead.

At some point, I can't remember the time of the evening, I concluded that if I did not step in and offer more help, this project would still be underway when the rest of the family was eating their Monday breakfast. So I stepped in, first offering to type for him while he dictated to me because he is one of the world's slowest typists.

Then I began helping him figure out how to draw various cell configurations. This is where the line between helping and doing becomes quite blurry. How much help is too much? I found myself wondering whether I was doing a little too much, depriving him of the opportunity to learn the important lessons of what happens to procrastinators. Needless to say, the exchanges between us became more testy as the clock ticked closer to 10 p.m.

But, finally, he (we) finished. He went to bed. And I got one of the worst bouts of insomnia I've had in years, because terms like mitochondria, nucleolus, nucleus, cell membrane, and a bunch of other biological words and images kept swimming around in my head along with the recurring question: Why the heck didn't he tell me about this project a week ago? And if I helped him too much, did he learn the concepts he was supposed to learn? Or was this just 12 hours of pointless pain and agony?

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 1:54 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

An interesting conversation is evolving around Katie's Dec. 11 post about the value of homework. The parents who commented seem to think there is too much of it and most of it is just busy work that won't necessarily help students become better learners.

I must say I stand smack in the middle of this debate. As the father of four children--ages 4, 10, 13, and 15--there are some nights, especially when I am maxed out doing a million tasks, that a child's plea for help on homework irritates me. Why does the school assign so much homework? Why can't my kid understand the concepts better? What's wrong with the teacher?

But on other nights, I genuinely enjoy helping my kids with homework, especially if it involves writing assignments or math problems. Helping them reach a new level of articulation on an essay or to solve a math problem is actually fun and rewarding. I do not see it as "busy work." Rather, I see it as reinforcing what they learn during the day, much like athletes practice skills on their own, outside of regular practices or games.

Homework also teaches skills that are important later in life, such as organization and time management. I have seen one of my kids go from someone who was completely disorganized and managed his time very poorly to now doing a solid, if not perfect, job of knowing what homework he has and when it is due and then figuring how much time it will take to complete it. And homework assignments have helped him get to that point.

But like most things in life, the key is balance. Teachers should not stop assigning homework simply because most students (and many parents) don't like it. But they should also not assign an overwhelming amount of it.

And, frankly, at this time of the year, when kids are looking forward to spending time with their friends on their winter breaks and families have a lot going on, teachers should use some common sense and lighten up a bit on the homework. At least that's one father's opinion.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 10:20 AM | Permalink | 8 Comments | Recommend

A new position paper put out by the Association for Childhood Education International outlines the teacher's role in student motivation and how that can be used to bolster achievement.

The paper draws two major conclusions about student motivation. The first is that "children's learning is supported by task-related incentives, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that are responsive to the individual child, the domain of study, and the sociocultural context." The second is that "effective teaching transcends merely imparting knowledge and relies, to a considerable extent, on educators' ability to motivate students to learn. Any characterization of learning that disregards the role of motivation and interest is shortsighted at best and destructive at worst."

Those two statements encapsulate a lot of what we talk about on this blog--making lessons relevant to students, the teacher's role in student motivation, and the importance of motivation in achievement--but what I was really pleased to see was the emphasis on both extrinsic and intrinsic incentives to motivate students.

We've talked a lot about extrinsic incentives in the past, with educators motivating students with the promise of money, cell phones, and even cars. But perhaps a more elusive goal is to motivate kids with the promise of an intrinsic incentive--the joy in the act of learning, for its own sake. The way I see it, unlike physical prizes, that kind of reward is timeless.

Posted by Katie Ash at 11:04 AM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

Having been out of school for about a year and a half now, I have to admit that one of the things I enjoy most about the working world is that when I go home, I don't have any homework. When I turn off my computer and put on my coat, that is officially the end of my working day, and I'm not required to think about it anymore. It is a luxury I always envied when I was a student.

But then again, as I've mentioned many times before, I did a lot of homework when I was in school, and I truly believe that those hours of reading, writing, and studying contributed to a much higher and more comprehensive understanding of what I was learning in class.

So I was pretty torn when I read this column in the Los Angeles Times. It links homework to childhood obesity and depression, decreased motivation, and even strained family relationships. While I identify with the author's plea for a "Christmas miracle"--no homework over break--another part of me agrees with the eloquent sentiments of eighth-grade student Maggie Moreton: "GET OVER IT LADY."

Maybe the question to be asked here is why aren't kids motivated to do their homework? What makes them so opposed to it that homework, in some cases, is causing fights within their households? Is it a lack of responsibility? Are there just plenty of other things kids would rather be doing? Or is it something else entirely?

My parents never had to bug me to hit the books, and I think, in large part, it had to do with a very clear understanding of what a zero on an assignment could do to my overall average. As my teachers never failed to point out, a missed assignment could send my grade plummeting from an A to a C, or worse. That alone was enough to motivate me.

Posted by Katie Ash at 12:12 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | Recommend

We want to draw your attention to a new campaign in Washington state called Creativity Matters. The goal of the campaign is to reinforce the argument that teaching kids how to be creative (as well as analytical) is important for the economic future of the United States, and that creativity can be taught across all academic subjects, not just in the arts.

It's worth noting that the campaign is supported by some big names in the corporate world, such as Microsoft and Boeing.

The campaign is considering some interesting proposals, such as training for principals on how to run schools that foster creativity.

Lately, we have been hearing more and more (particularly from the corporate world) about the need to foster creativity in students. On the surface, it seems like a good idea and educators and policymakers should be listening.

But schools need to really think long and hard about how they would accomplish this goal. I have seen many classrooms over the years in which "creativity" lessons turn into silly, academic fluff.

Bottom line: Creativity and academic rigor should be the goal.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There's nothing like a story about a Mexican immigrant who has written two books, appeared on television, and given a series of motivational speeches all before she could legally drive to make you feel lazy.

Yuliana Gallegos, 16, has written a book called Mi sueno de America/My American Dream about her experiences as an English-language learner after her family moved to Houston when she was in the fourth grade. Determined to keep up with her peers, she spent hours each night doing her homework with the help of stacks of dictionaries and quizzed herself on new vocab every day, says the article. Seven years later, she can now speak fluent English and has a scrapbook filled to the brim with her accomplishments.

The story of this teenager is certainly inspiring, but it also touches on how much more enthusiasm ELL students have to bring to the classroom in order to stay on track with their English-speaking classmates. Gallegos' philosophy? "At first, it's going to be difficult. Nothing in the world is easy. There will be many rocks in your path, but if you fall, keep going." Pretty sage advice from one clearly motivated kid.

For more about this topic, head over to Mary Ann Zehr's Learning the Language blog. She has been following the schooling of English-language learners for more than seven years and has written many, many insightful posts in her blog about the challenges they face.

Posted by Katie Ash at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Telling high-achieving kids that they are smart and talented may seem like a good idea, but according to this article from Scientific American magazine, attributing good grades to natural ability and talent can actually squelch students' motivation when they run into harder problems.

We have written in this blog about this idea before, when researcher Carol S. Dweck put out her book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Dweck groups kids into two categories: those with a fixed mindset who believe that achievement is directly related to natural talent, and those with a growth mindset who think success is a result of effort and hard work. Since natural talent isn't something that can be improved, the kids with a fixed mindset are more likely to get frustrated and give up when their natural ability starts to fail them, while the kids with a growth mindset are motivated to keep trying, since they perceive that they are capable of overcoming the problem by putting in a greater amount of effort.

In the article, she talks about how when the kids with fixed mindsets were taught how to think with a growth mindset, they began to "see themselves as agents of their own brain development." One kid even asked, "You mean I don't have to be dumb?" Students who previously showed little interest or concern for their school work began putting in extra hours to complete assignments. Teachers, who were unaware of which students were in the growth mindset classes, began to notice the results almost immediately.

This is a great counterpoint to those folks who believe that motivation is just something kids are born with or without. Simply by encouraging students to think about and approach difficult subject matter differently, researchers were able to motivate seemingly uncaring students to put more effort into studying.

This article is a little lengthy, but it's well worth the read if you get a chance.

Posted by Katie Ash at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, I read an essay published in the Hoover Digest, written by Diane Ravitch. In the essay, Ravitch, whose well-defined ideas on education you can find on her Bridging Differences blog, says that we are quick to blame teachers for low international test scores and poorly performing schools, but we rarely point to the students and their "slacker" attitude towards school when thinking about reform. It's really an excellent essay, and I highly recommend that you read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt just for reference's sake:

Next time there is a conference about the state of American education--or the problems found in each and every school district--why don't we take a hard look at why so many of our students are slackers? Why don't we look at the popular culture and its effects on students' readiness to apply themselves to learning? Why don't we appraise the role models of "success" who surround our children in the press? Why don't we ask how often our children see models of success who are doctors, nurses, educators, scientists, engineers, and others who enable our society to function and who contribute to our common good?

The idea that an overarching anti-intellectual societal attitude has something to do with why kids aren't motivated to do well in school also came up in this post about a dip in the number of students reading for pleasure. One reason kids may be reading less, suggested one commenter, is because there's no cultural validation for reading books. Ravitch takes it a step further by implying that not only is there no cultural incentive to read books, but there's no societal validation for studying in general.

I'm no sociologist, but it seems to me that Ravitch is on to something. In American media, who is glorified more often: Movie stars or engineers? Pro-sports players or brain surgeons?

I don't think you can point to any one entity as an explanation for such a complicated issue, but I can't help but wonder: How do those kinds of role models affect the way our kids learn and how hard they're willing to study? Is society at least partly to blame for the lack of motivation in our students? And if so, how do we go about changing that? Do other countries have similar problems, or is this specifically an issue in the United States?

Posted by Katie Ash at 11:11 AM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

I'm not one to hold grudges, but my college application process was one of the most stressful and disappointing experiences in my recent memory. Despite four years of extracurricular activities, volunteer work, college-level classes, and loads of homework, I was still rejected from my first-choice school. Afterwards, I felt that if I had chosen to take a less-rigorous curriculum during high school, I would have had higher grades, and consequently, a higher class rank, which may have resulted in an acceptance letter.

Of course, that's all speculative, and some would just call me bitter, but I don't think I'm alone in my frustration. This past fall, I watched my younger sister struggle with the same problem I had when I was applying to college: how to get admissions officers to see you as more than a class rank. So it made me happy to see this article in the Dallas Morning News, which says that the University of Texas at Austin's admissions officers are putting less emphasis on rank, and more focus on essays, what classes the student took, and other factors.

When admissions officers look at each kid as a whole package, I think it makes students more likely to pursue activities, courses, and curricula that interest and inspire them most, rather than choosing whatever will keep them in the top 10 percent of their class. For some students, those paths are synonymous; others are not so lucky. I do not regret choosing the curriculum that I did in high school, as it shaped the way I think and instilled in me a life-long love of learning and education, but I do wish that it had not come at such a high price.

Enthusiasm, motivation, and determination are qualities that are strong predictors of success, but they can't always be defined by a number. And I think it's great that more college admissions officers are warming up to that idea.

Posted by Katie Ash at 1:50 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

I hope my 4-year-old daughter has the science genes and motivation to follow in the footsteps of this group of girls, who recently swept the prestigious Siemens high school science competition. This is the first time ever that girls have won all the grand prizes in the competition, according to this Associated Press story.

This is great news for girls and maybe the stereotype that girls are not good at math and science is beginning to disappear.

But the underside of these results is the question: What is the matter with the boys? Are they on the decline?

As the father of three sons and having written about this issue in some depth in the past, those questions have to be asked.

Science educators: What are you seeing in your classrooms? Are girls showing more interest in science than boys? Or are the results of this competition merely a statistical blip in the world of gender equity in science?

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 10:26 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

I can only imagine the whining that ensued when students in 10 Massachusetts schools were told that their school day would stretch from a 6-hour schedule to an 8- or 9-hour day. But the results are in, and according to this article in the Boston Globe, it's working.

The students in schools with longer days scored higher on the MCAS--Massachusett's state-wide standardized test--in math, English, and science across all grade levels than students in schools with a normal schedule, according to a report released on Friday. It makes sense to me that being in school for a longer amount of time would increase students' test scores, but what is more surprising is how schools are making use of the additional 2 or 3 hours.

From the article, it seems like most teachers aren't using the extra time to cram in more information--instead, they're adding in hands-on activities to reinforce the curriculum and explore topics more fully. Also, a lot of schools are giving kids a chance to take electives, like art and sports activities, which have been squeezed out of the schedule because of time constraints, say the principals.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is boosting achievement for these schools, but I'd be willing to bet that at least part of it has to do with motivating students through creative, engaging activities, and giving kids a chance to relax and explore non-academic subjects that interest them.

Posted by Katie Ash at 12:12 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend