Week 3 Blog: Role of Teacher, Autonomy, and Incentives
An idea from Thornburg’s “Evolving Classroom” that was emphasized was the role of the teacher. The classroom is a shared space and too often it can become teacher-centered. In this situation, the teacher is the only one imparting the knowledge and the students are expected to internalize facts and procedures. When students are given the opportunity to seek their own answers and develop additional inquiries the learning process becomes more meaningful. This ties in to Dan Pink’s explanation about motivation in that autonomy can lead to better engagement and self-performance. I’ve observed classrooms where the majority of the lesson is explained and the strategies used are not flexible to include different types of learners. I noticed that students' attention would wander and they did not engage with the lesson. Teachers who have a balanced approach and guide student’s in their learning will create a classroom environment that thrives and values engagement.
Another idea that was shared in Dan Pink’s video was about incentives and performance. I’ve observed classrooms that used this system frequently and have seen negative effects. For example, the behavior ladder where students move up if they are producing great work and appropriate behavior and move down if they misbehave or refuse to work. Students who reach the top of the ladder often rewarded with prizes. I found this tool to have short term results in influencing the children’s behavior and long term effects on the student’s self-esteem. Students who are not engaged in the lesson will become even less so if they are moving down the ladder. The children take each movement on the ladder very personally. This is a method I would not incorporate in my classroom because it does not create a safe learning environment. I do believe incentives can motivate students but it should be incorporated in a way that will improve engagement rather than cause worry and self-doubt.
This is so insightful. I have not worked in a classroom yet, so I really appreciate your explanation of the negative impacts of a ladder reward-type system. This reminds me of an LAUSD Board Meeting I attended just before Covid with students from the activist group Students Deserve. They were there partly to object to a yelp-like rating system under consideration by the district. Although many of the students at that meeting attend low-rated schools, they had a lot of pride in their schools and in their instructors. It really struck me that one of the students said, "If you tell a kid that their school is a 3, you're telling them that they are a 3." The ladder-style incentive seems like a similar system where certain kids start to identify themselves as low performers and other kids begin to identify as high performers, simply because they might be at a more advanced developmental stage at that particular moment. Long term, this could impact both kids negatively. The high-performing kid may think that's just who they are and they don't need to try, anymore. The low-performing child may get frustrated or ashamed and give up.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting connection! That rating system sounds like it would take a toll on not only on the school but the staff and students as well. This type of system would discourage teachers to seek employment in low rated schools and parents to look for another option. It seems as if the school would make little progress because of the label they are assigned. What a powerful statement. A student's self-esteem is a huge contributing factor to their learning. If the idea that they are a certain type of performer is reinforced they will begin to produce those types of results.
ReplyDelete