Comments on: Suspending Belief… http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/02/suspending-belief.html Education News, Analysis, and Commentary Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:00:28 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Catherine http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/02/suspending-belief.html/comment-page-1#comment-382 Catherine Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:11:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/02/suspending-belief.html#comment-382 from <a HREF="http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter07_08/scientist.htm" REL="nofollow">Daniel Willingham's article</a> on rewards and motivation:<br/><br/><i>The key factor to keep in mind is that rewards only decrease motivation for tasks that students initially like. If the task is dull, motivation might drop back down to its original level once the rewards stop, but it will not drop below its original level.</i> from Daniel Willingham’s article on rewards and motivation:

The key factor to keep in mind is that rewards only decrease motivation for tasks that students initially like. If the task is dull, motivation might drop back down to its original level once the rewards stop, but it will not drop below its original level.

]]> By: Dewey http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/02/suspending-belief.html/comment-page-1#comment-371 Dewey Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:19:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/02/suspending-belief.html#comment-371 There is an unseen consequence to student pay for test scores that I think studies of such programs are likely to miss: what happens to motivation when incentives no longer exist down the road. If I understand correctly this is relatively well-studied phenomenon in psychology. I recall a study I learned about in college, where young children were divided into two groups. In the first an adult gave the children crayons and asked them to make drawings. The children proceeded to do so. In the second, the children were told that if they made drawings they would be given candy. The children (much more enthusiastically) proceeded to do so. In the second round of the experiment, the children were again asked to make drawings, but this time, there was no offer of candy for either group. The children who had never been offered candy, proceeded to make another round of drawings. The group who had initially been offered the "reward", now declined to make drawings. The interpretation the authors of the study made was that the children in the first group had learned that the reason to do the drawings was the external incentive of candy, and when the external incentive was removed, so too was their motivation. Gives me serious pause about pay for test-scores unless we can ensure that such external incentives will continue throughout the rest of children's academic lives. There is an unseen consequence to student pay for test scores that I think studies of such programs are likely to miss: what happens to motivation when incentives no longer exist down the road. If I understand correctly this is relatively well-studied phenomenon in psychology. I recall a study I learned about in college, where young children were divided into two groups. In the first an adult gave the children crayons and asked them to make drawings. The children proceeded to do so. In the second, the children were told that if they made drawings they would be given candy. The children (much more enthusiastically) proceeded to do so. In the second round of the experiment, the children were again asked to make drawings, but this time, there was no offer of candy for either group. The children who had never been offered candy, proceeded to make another round of drawings. The group who had initially been offered the “reward”, now declined to make drawings. The interpretation the authors of the study made was that the children in the first group had learned that the reason to do the drawings was the external incentive of candy, and when the external incentive was removed, so too was their motivation. Gives me serious pause about pay for test-scores unless we can ensure that such external incentives will continue throughout the rest of children’s academic lives.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/02/suspending-belief.html/comment-page-1#comment-366 Anonymous Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:19:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/02/suspending-belief.html#comment-366 "In fact, Bloomberg is on to something. The cell-phone bribe and the pay-for-test-scores scheme, which provides up to $500 a year for seventh-graders who do well on 10 exams, are the brainchildren of black economist Roland G. Fryer. An assistant professor at Harvard who also serves as the New York City Education Department's chief equality officer, Fryer himself grew up in difficult circumstances (his mother left when he was very young, and his father spent time in prison for sexual assault). But Fryer succeeded, and he became interested in finding out what incentives would motivate more students growing up in like circumstances to do well. His ideas are an intriguing combination of tough and liberal approaches: tough because they take a hard-nosed rather than romantic view of education, and liberal in that the goal is to raise the achievement of low-income kids and foster social mobility. <br/><br/>Fryer's ideas are closely connected to those of another tough liberal, the late Albert Shanker, who headed the teachers' unions from 1964 until his death in 1997. Shanker argued that the incentive structure in American public education was terribly biased in favor of well-off kids and against poorer ones. Students who were shooting to attend selective four-year colleges—most of whom were upper-middle class and white—had plenty of incentive to do well academically." -- Rick Kahlenberg, Slate, Nov. 6, 2007<br/><br/>There's more here:<br/><br/>http://www.slate.com/id/2177554 “In fact, Bloomberg is on to something. The cell-phone bribe and the pay-for-test-scores scheme, which provides up to $500 a year for seventh-graders who do well on 10 exams, are the brainchildren of black economist Roland G. Fryer. An assistant professor at Harvard who also serves as the New York City Education Department’s chief equality officer, Fryer himself grew up in difficult circumstances (his mother left when he was very young, and his father spent time in prison for sexual assault). But Fryer succeeded, and he became interested in finding out what incentives would motivate more students growing up in like circumstances to do well. His ideas are an intriguing combination of tough and liberal approaches: tough because they take a hard-nosed rather than romantic view of education, and liberal in that the goal is to raise the achievement of low-income kids and foster social mobility.

Fryer’s ideas are closely connected to those of another tough liberal, the late Albert Shanker, who headed the teachers’ unions from 1964 until his death in 1997. Shanker argued that the incentive structure in American public education was terribly biased in favor of well-off kids and against poorer ones. Students who were shooting to attend selective four-year colleges—most of whom were upper-middle class and white—had plenty of incentive to do well academically.” — Rick Kahlenberg, Slate, Nov. 6, 2007

There’s more here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2177554

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/02/suspending-belief.html/comment-page-1#comment-364 Anonymous Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:12:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/02/suspending-belief.html#comment-364 http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2008/01/paying-for-student-performance.html http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2008/01/paying-for-student-performance.html

]]>