1) Watch the following TedTalk: The Puzzle of Motivation by Dan Pink
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
2) Please post your answers to the following questions:
* What are some connections we can make between Dan Pink's and Sergiovanni's definitions of motivation? Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards?
* How does the concept of "rewards" get played out in education? What kinds of rewards do teachers receive? Do they help improve practice? Teaching and learning?
* When looking at education from this motivation/reward perspective, what are the implications for us as future instructional leaders?
Part Two: Readings
1) Please email me your responses to the following questions:
* What motivates and inspires you as an educator? What does your school leader do to motivate and inspire you? Is there an overlap or a disconnect between these two perspectives?
* Why is it important as a school leader to actively and consistently engage the community? In what ways does your school seek input from different stakeholders?
* As we all know, Loudoun County is growing exponentially and thus had many new initiatives and changes to both students and staff in their systems district, level, individual schools, and grade wide (Examples: health care, IEP Phoenix system, new student information system, and diploma requirements). How do you think Loudoun has done with communication-what worked and what needs improvement? (from Katy, one of our Question Starters this week :-)
Part Three: Assignment One Prep
1) Read the Annotated Bibliography assignment description and parameters (syllabus)
2) Carefully review the Annotated Bibliography rubric (syllabus), paying close attention to the criteria for earning a "four" in each category.
3) Read BOTH Annotated Bibliography student exemplars on Taskstream. Using the rubric, score Student Exemplar #2 (I've only included one entry to make scoring manageable :-). Points per section can be given in quarter increments (3.25. 3.5, 3.75, etc). If you take points off anywhere, please make a small notation as to why.
4) Read "A Quick Guide to Searching" on Taskstream as a refresher on how to access the GMU library portal. A quick reminder: Quality sources are peer-reviewed and include qualitative/quantitative studies, as well as empirical, theoretical, and syntheses studies. While practitioner articles are great for PD sessions, keep your focus on scholarly pieces with a clear methods section. Google Scholar is also a good site for finding sources. Just remember, you don't need to pay for any articles! The GMU library has most journals and you can use the Library Portal to download any articles you find on the web!
5) Begin research/reading for your Annotated Bibliography.
Homework for Session Three
* Complete all E-Class work before our next class.
* Bring scored rubric for AB Student Exemplar #2 to class
* Bring field observation notes from a recent staff meeting (Focus of the meeting? Were faculty members engaged? Did admin communicate effectively?)
* Read The Sources of Authority for Leadership (Chapter Three) - Sergiovanni
* Read Harness Your Secret Weapon (Chapter 7) and Face Those Angry Parents (Chapter 13) - WSCM
* Assignment One: Annotated Bibliography due January 31- February 2 (midnight)
* Assignment Three: Begin reaching out to potential focus group participants. Possible dates for meeting?
Both Pink & Sergiovanni define motivation in terms of intrinsic & extrinsic motivation & both support the idea that intrinsic motivation is more effective than extrinsic motivation. Pink discusses extrinsic motivation as external factors such monetary rewards for jobs well done or consequences for poor performance & intrinsic motivation as internal reasons for completing a job because it matters, it is liked, interesting or important. According to Pink, factors that contribute to intrinsic motivation are autonomy, mastery, and productivity. Sergiovonni writes about extrinsic motivators as calculated (What gets rewarded gets done.), intrinsic motivators as personal satisfaction (What is rewarding gets done) but also adds a third component - our moral commitment (duty/obligation) to a task (What is good gets done). In both Pink’s TED talk and Sergiovanni’s writing, the benefit of intrinsic motivation over extrinsic are a common theme.
ReplyDeleteExtrinsic motivators for teachers include high stake tests, the newly adopted school rating system, and mandates placed on schools by local, state & federal levels – students perform well you get rewarded….students do not meet established goal there are consequences – i.e. focus schools, mandated SIP goals, etc. There has also been talk of pay for performance – teachers’ salaries being dependent on the performance of their students. From my observations of the work environment in the last 13 years in education, the more extrinsic factors that are in place, the less satisfied teachers are with their jobs. I would argue that for the majority of teachers it is the intrinsic factors such as the “aha moments” when a struggling student understands a concepts, a gift students teaches the teacher something he/she did not know, the compliments from students, parents, and colleagues for a job well-done that keeps teachers in the profession. (As we enter the budget season where the message is that education funding should be cut – the message is that teachers are not valued…..thank goodness for the intrinsic factors!)
Future leaders have to establish a balance. Extrinsic factors in education are not going to go away any time soon and in many cases can be necessary – helping to guide when needed. However, in a profession full of creative and motivated people, an administrator’s job is to make sure that the extrinsic forces do not overpower the intrinsic/moral – providing teachers with the structure and support to meet the mandates while finding a balance of power over their profession, supporting their professional development, and leading toward the overall vision in the school.
Dan Pink’s focus or case of intrinsic rewards is based upon autonomy, mastery, and purpose. He believes autonomy needs to be given to the worker. He used google as an example. Folks were given the power to use their time. Another example was ROWE no schedules, show up when they want, and meetings were optional increased worker engagement. For mechanical tasks extrinsic rewards of bonuses worked but with rudimentary tasks extrinsic rewards saw poorer performances. Sergiovanni believes teachers are more motivated by what they believe and their peers rather than what managers are providing or offering as incentives. Similarities of both Pink and Sergiovanni’s thoughts are looking inside (intrinsic) people to see what their interests are to motivate them. Both align with more of hands off approach rather than micromanaging. Thinking about key characteristics of good leaders from lesson one, classmates mentioned visibility and trust. These characteristics are embedded in Pink’s and Sergiovanni’s work.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that came to my mind in terms of “rewards” in the school counseling field is a student who had been in Family Services was awarded a $5000 scholarship towards educational goals. For me this was an intrinsic reward. It wasn’t the amount of the scholarship, it was the students’ challenging story that I was able to convey to the scholarship committee. The second thing that came into my mind was I believe in Florida and other states teachers were getting bonuses based upon how many students they were able to pass the FCAT or other standardize state testing. To me this is where things get real. It also may mean a fight for resources among staff. As a leader, I think it’s going to be important to remember the overall vision and mission of the school and stay true to that. So for some teachers, extrinsic “rewards” such as compensation could help improve teaching strategies and test scores, but I think for most the pressure would hurt instruction and creativity. Per Dan Pink philosophy, instruction would be hurt. “If then rewards” would destroy creativity and autonomy would be nonexistent. The third thing that came to my mind is students and how we motivate them. It is common to observe teachers say “I give an extra credit point to anyone who is working hard and not talking. Students even work for a gold star or a candy bar.
Pink's TED discussion was very interesting to watch. I felt that his message was to stop thinking in 20th Century terms of management, and to update to the much needed 21st Century skills in schools and businesses. The "carrots and sticks" of motivation of the past need to be updated to the building blocks of the 21st Century - Pink says autonomy, mastery and purpose. We need to move away from the extrinsic incentives that lead to poorer performance, and only work when you have a simple set of rules that require narrow focus. Sergiovanni stated "self interest in not powerful enough to fully account for human motivation. We are also driven by what we believe is right and good, by how we feel about things, and by the norms that emerge from our connections with other people; we are driven by morality, emotion, and social bonds, which together comprise the assumptions that underlie a morally based leadership". I agree with Katharine when she stated both align with a more hands-off approach over micromanaging, and both would require a leader to trust and have "faith" in the people they hire to get the job done.
ReplyDeleteI think all of us would agree we did not go into education for the money. I do however see teachers wanting the praise and "good job" from a fellow colleague or administration. I think we all work a little harder when someone you least expects tells you you are doing a great job. Students I believe have the same reaction. When completing PBIS training this summer, I remember it takes 4 praises to erase one "gotcha". I believe though with all the high stakes testing that is placed on teachers and students today, we will move away from both teaching 21st century skills and extrinsic motivators.
Sergiovanni and Pink both define motivation by addressing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. They both talk quite a bit about extrinsic rewards (i.e. extra pay, gifts, etc.) vs intrinsic rewards (i.e. emotions, morals, etc.). Both note, in their own way, that extrinsic rewards do not always provide the outcome that we would like. Quite frankly, studies show that people often perform worse when an extrinsic reward is offered. Pink called these rewards contingent motivators and he noted that they dull thinking and block creativity. He also spoke of If/Then rewards. Much the same, these rewards narrow focus. They are mostly appropriate when the activity/project requires mostly left brain thinking. The goal should be to expand our focus and think outside of the box, or in other words, encourage more creative or right brain thinking. When people are motivated by their emotions, values, morals, etc. they do better work. They show more self-direction and engagement.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of rewards in education can be tricky. Teachers often offer rewards to students in order to encourage them to do their best work. As a teacher, I remember being very frustrated when I felt my students would respond great to a reward and they didn't. In the end, I realize that they needed to be motivated by the activity/project. They had to be invested in what they were doing and intrinsically want to do well. The extrinsic reward meant very little. The same goes for teachers. In any job/business, the employee has to be motivated to do their job because they are invested in what they are doing to achieve the best outcome. It is my experience that individuals do not go in to teaching for the pay or for any other extrinsic reward/motivation. They go in to teaching because they want to make a difference in children's lives by educating them. They want to watch these children learn, grow and discover new things about the world, life and themselves. Of course, there are exceptions to this but they are few. To me, strict curriculum guidelines minimize the opportunity for creativity and extrinsic rewards (i.e. compensation for student achievement, high stakes tests, etc.) cause more stress to teachers, making them unhappy with the direction that their job is taking and the pressure that is put on them. When teachers focus on their intrinsic motivators, more so than their extrinsic motivators, they remain engaged, invested and focused on the most important outcome which is student learning. I feel that instruction improves, student engagement improves and learning outcomes improve.
As future instructional leaders, I think it is important to remember that educators come to the profession with an internal motivation that those outside of education do not always understand. There is a level of trust that has to be placed on your teaching staff. As a leader, they have to know that you trust that they will do their best possible work with the students, with or without "rewards". That being said, everyone wants to hear a "good job" or "congratulations" every now and then so they know that you recognize what they are doing with and for students. This does not mean that an instructional leader can be "hands off" and not monitor what teachers are doing, but it does mean that there are ways to monitor teachers that does not include micromanaging, etc. I believe many schools within LCPS are on the right track for this monitoring with the implementation of CLTs and ITs if they are done correctly. This is a way for leaders to monitor what teachers are doing with and for students and for teachers to continue being intrinsically motivated when they see that their students are learning and making progress with what is being taught.
Both Sergiovanni and Pink place more of an emphasis on intrinsic motivation. Sergiovanni's Table 2.1 (pg 27) lays out the different rules, motivation, and involvement. Pink's talk backed up this table: what is rewarded, or has extrinsic gain, gets done just to get done. Pink and Sergiovanni also agree autonomy, or the urge to direct our own lives, is what gets the most accomplished. Sergiovanni used the example of a teacher work day. When the teachers were able to define their own work day, most stayed late to get work done (as most of us do). However, administration felt that because of 2 teachers leaving only 5 minutes after the students, a new "teacher dismissal time" had to be instituted. This caused the reward to go from intrinsic and moral to extrinsic and calculated.
ReplyDeleteRewards for teachers gets played out in education all time time. Many districts are looking into merit pay as a way to motivate teachers. In my opinion, this will cause teachers to turn against each other and for some students to become the "unwanteds" who would not do well on state tests, which would prevent teachers from earning scores that would give them a bonus. Teacher rewards are mostly intrinsic. We do what we do because we want to, because we love it, not because of the high salary or end of year bonuses that we are automatically given. I do not feel that offering bonuses would improve teaching. Other smaller rewards, such as a compliment from a fellow teacher or administrator, would go a long way to knowing that what we do is noticed and appreciated.
When looking at this through a "future administrator/instructional leader" lens, I can't help but notice that free and simple rewards go a long way. Yes, money is nice, but with the state of the economy, a massive influx to support cash rewards isn't coming anytime soon. Therefore, it falls to me to find creative ways to reward teachers. Little notes, an extra planning time, or jeans day (he he) are all simple ways that can be used to thank educators for their hard work and commitment in a sometimes thankless field.
It was evident in Dan Pink’s TED Talk addressing the science of human motivators, specifically the dynamics of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators, that there are clear connections between the research he cites regarding the scientific principles of human motivation and that which Sergiovanni cites in Chapter 2 of Human Motivation. Pink’s thesis is exemplified by the various outcomes of the candle problem, the results of which demand on whether the presentation of the problem was simple or complex conceptually, and whether the parties involved were intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. He cites the mismatch between what science/research has proven about human motivators and how the preponderance of businesses uses motivators for management. Sergiovanni describes the way by which management theory has overplayed the importance of self-interest, personal pleasure an individual choice, where the assumption is that human beings are so selfish and their self-interest is so dominant that they overshadow the human drive to do what is believed to be right. Similarly, Pink describes the “if-then” rewards driven by traditional notions of management, which are effective under a narrow band of circumstances (compliance) but which undermine creativity. Sergiovanni emphasizes the need to become more authentic, in touch with basic values and connections to one another which is in line with Pink’s theory that when humans are self-directed and do things because they matter, their engagement is increased and performance is high, particularly when making decisions about twenty-first century matters that involve deeper thinking and creativity.
DeleteIt is certainly ironic that this question is being asked during the budget season, where salaries, which make up the largest portion of the budget is once again being reviewed and evaluated by non-educators who are primarily politicians out to please their constituency. Particularly in public education, monetary rewards (i.e., salary and benefits) have not been what have drawn most teachers to the field of education. Of course, remunerating teachers so that they can afford to work one job (that of teaching) without having to resort to additional part-time work to subsidize their household incomes allows teachers to spend more time, expend more energy, and both participate in and provide greater professional development opportunities to improve student outcomes.
Depending on tone set by the building-level administration, teachers can be provided recognition, acknowledgement of job well-done and greater opportunities to extend beyond their current assignments, or they can be held to rigid, artificial standards. There is a dichotomy between the way in which teachers are evaluated, with focus divided between evaluating for student outcomes when teachers have little to no control over the students selected to be in their classrooms, and the walk-through design of providing feedback that is supposed to be non-evaluative. Some teachers are so fearful of poor student outcomes that they are hesitant to innovate and instead put a tremendous amount of pressure on their students to perform (extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation). Other teachers are encouraged to teach authentically, to treat the “whole child” and to transform their schools into learning communities for their colleagues and for their clients, the students. (continued)
(continuation from previous post)
ReplyDeleteThe move toward authenticity and transformation of schools is encouraging, as is the move away from the tighter bureaucratic management based on extrinsic motivators. Noteworthy is the fact that due to Federal and State expectations regarding Within LCPS, As more decisions about the school community are made for “the right reasons,” and working with colleagues through professional learning communities. When LCPS was held accountable extrinsically, our assistant superintendent for instruction became involved and there was a shift in expectations for the entire county. Initially four elementary schools were targeted for school improvement given the criteria they met as focus schools, with very specific tasks that needed to be accomplished (and ongoing) as per the State. While directors were attempting to put these practices into place across the county (ultimately increasing student outcomes), few schools/building administrations were interested in participating. However, once the dictum was put in place as a countywide expectation, there began a shift in expectations. Interestingly, this began as a top-down initiative, again focusing on extrinsic motivators. Hopefully as results continue to demonstrate increased student outcomes spilling into stronger school communities (including parents), the shift toward “doing the right thing” for “the right reasons” will increased as professionals are increasingly motivated intrinsically.
Pink and Sergiovanni's have very similar thoughts regarding motivation. They recognize the differences between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and understand how each type affects the behavior of people. They each address the fact that extrinsic motivators are outside rewards for a job well done and what gets rewarded gets done, while intrinsic motivators are more along the lines of internal rewards for a completing a job.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to agreeing on the definitions of each type of motivation, both people also agree on how these types of motivation actually affect the work being done. Both have found and argue that extrinsic motivators actually lessen the ability to complete a job to the best of ones capability. They argue that studies show that people become less attached to an activity and become dependent on rewards to to complete work. However, most businesses continue to offer these extrinsic motivators, thinking that their staff will work harder. In contrast, people who complete work because of intrinsic motivation are often more committed to the work and are more open minded to problem solving. They are more creative and attached to what they are doing. These people are driven by by their own desire to accomplish work.
In education rewards are used for both staff members and students. Although these rewards and extrinsic motivators look different from school to school, they are utilized throughout a majority of the county. Although educators are familiar with both styles of motivation, it seems that we still lean toward using extrinsic motivators when we need things done. For teachers some of these extrinsic motivators are used to get teachers to create and submit lesson plans, join committees, attend school functions outside of normal hours, and take on extra duties. The types of extrinsic motivators can include jeans day certificate, an early out pass, having someone cover your recess duty, or a bonus, to name just a few I have seen used. However, having worked in a few different schools I have noticed that the people who truly enjoy their work and really want to make a difference in their school and childrens' lives complete all the extra tasks and go above and beyond on their own, because it is important to them. On the other hand the teachers who only perform such tasks for a reward often do the minimum requirements for the job and usually don't put their best foot forward. As far as students are concerned extrinsic motivators are used to encourage good manners, work completion, respect, and in some cases grades. These rewards can come in many different ways including earning tickets, prizes, lunch bunch, extra recess or computer time, and homework passes to name a few. However, again I have often seen students rush through assignments, only behave as expected when being watched, complete work carelessly just to say it's finished, and not work to their full potential. I do not believe that these motivators improve teaching and learning. If anything I have seen them stifle creativity, work ethic, and drive. While I don't think that extrinsic motivators should stopped being used all together, I do believe that there needs to be more opportunity to utilize intrinsic motivators and have the opportunity to reflect on the reason why we as educators want to be in this profession. Extrinsic rewards should never be expected in return for doing a good job, but rather if used should be an occasional unexpected surprise.
As a future leader I believe it is important to instill the philosophy of doing things for the right reasons. Those reasons are not to earn rewards. Instead educators need to be reminded that we are here for the children. The greatest reward is seeing a child be successful and know you helped them achieve their goals. as future leaders we need to remember that to achieve success we must think critically and problem solve in new ways. we need to be able to think outside the box. To do this we need to be intrinsically motivated and feel that the task we are completing is rewarding in itself. As future leaders we need to be aware of the negative impact extrinsic motivators can have on creativity, job completion, determination, and internal drive. We need to reestablish the foundation and importance of intrinsic motivation in our staff. As expectations increase we need to be able to motivate our staff in a positive way in order to reach our goals and meet the needs of the children. We also need to be aware that as a new leader, especially in a setting where extrinsic motivators have been used in attempt to inspire staff, switching to an intrinsic style of motivation will be difficult. It will be easy to fall into the trap of using extrinsic motivators. Getting staff and students to value intrinsic motivation can take time and only as they begin to truly appreciate the results of their work, will they begin to understand the importance of doing things for the right reasons. However, once this philosophy is introduced and becomes valued, the capability of educators and students will increase.
ReplyDeletePink's and Sergiovanni's definitions of motivation both use intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Both state that intrinsic rewards are more powerful and productive than extrinsic rewards. The power within self to succeed, enjoy what their doing, discover new ideas is more rewarding and productive compared to extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are often monetary and can actually cause less productivity. Sergiovanni suggests that extrinisc rewards tend to make people controlled by the reward which is counter productive and creativity is squashed! Pink and Sergiovanni mentioned that yes, extrinsic rewards can lead to success but only in certain situations but overall it is less effective. Pink used great examples of well known companies that thrive on intrinsic rewards and are ultimately extremely successful and respected companies; ie-Google, Wikapedia etc. These businesses allow and the freedom for creativity among their employees to build their intrinsic values which in turn enhances their company! Pink also stated that there are three factors that are a guiding force in intrinsic motivation is autonomy, mastery, and productivity. Together these help sustain a health work environment that will strengthen one's self to do well.
ReplyDeleteI feel that most of the "rewards" in education are intrinsic but they were created and motivated solely by the teacher. When a student is successful or finally grasps a difficult subject teachers are thrilled and strive to help all learners. This can motivate the teacher to be more creative and figure what worked and how can I make this lesson better. It is the little things that intrinsically drive most teachers and that's why we stay in this profession! However, the extrinsic rewards are having the highest standardized test scores, the perfect attendance rewards, documentation of the most student growth during one academic year, the lowest number of referrals etc encompass this area. The latest extrinsic reward is the discussion over merit pay for high performance testing. Which in my opinion is ridiculous and extremely offensive as an educator. Rewarding student success in a monetary form will not make a break a child's education. This extrinsic reward will have a negative effect on the teachers and ultimately the students. Pink and Sergiovanni both agree that this isn't the correct path to help production! Our production is producing functioning society members that are educated. Not what teacher had the smartest students who aided in he/she receiving the highest monetary reward possible.
As a future instructional leader it is important to have creativity in the school that will help drive all teachers intrinsically. This will hopefully create a pleasant working environment which will help the students to be engaged and learning will be taking place. Extrinsic motivators, such as test scores, will not be disappearing but it will be my job to make sure they aren't the main focus that is driving the school. As we just read and watched, this is a negative backlash and doesn't enhance productivity. Yes tests scores are important, but they are a test a child took on one day and that only shows us what a student did on that test, not the overall growth the student has done or how they were 2 grades below grade level but advance one year during the year. The truth is, all teachers want their students to succeed on their own level which is an intrinsic and moral motivator and that's what drives us daily! A simple "great job today" from an administrator to a teacher can actually be a good extrinsic reward that carries over into aiding their intrinsic motivation. A good leader will encourage intrinsic motivation and try to allow the teacher opportunities to help fuel this motivator.
Sarah Rees
I agree with everyone's response thus far that Pink and Sergiovanni define motivation with the use of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. They both argue that intrinsic rewards are more successful and as Pink states, brings about higher performance. Whereas, he also argues that the if/then rewards offered in business often destroy creativity. Sergiovanni talks about "what is rewarding gets done" which implies that teachers need to be intrinsically motivated in order to achieve to high standards.
ReplyDeleteI feel that rewards are often at play in education. For teachers, most often it is intrinsic motivation that keeps them energized and dedicated to their students' success. In education, a teacher's pay is determined purely on the amount of experience and the level of degree of education the teacher has. Although, we all would probably like to be paid more, this allows for more intrinsic motivation rather than the extrinsic reward that the proposed pay for performance scale would. However, there are also other extrinsic motivators in education such as standardized testing scores and AMO/AYP. While we are not at the point of providing rewards for teachers based on their students' SOL scores, there are certainly consequences for teachers whose students do not perform well on standardized tests. In my opinion, I agree with Pink's point about how this type of rewarding narrows the focus and restricts the possibilities of education. Instead of creative and outside of the box thinking type lessons for our students, we often see teachers teaching to help the students pass the SOL tests. I feel that this is the wrong type of motivation for our teachers and students and something that I would like to see changed in the future of education.
There are several implications for the future of education in looking at this research. It is extremely important as a future school leader to foster intrinsic motivation both in my staff and in the students in my school. One way to achieve this is to make my desire for intrinsic motivation knows and model this type of behavior for my staff. In one of the schools where I work, there has been a change in leadership in the past few years. The previous administration was very specific on all the requirements outside of the job (i.e., number of PTA and extra curricular meeting attended, start and stop times for teacher work days, etc). When the new administration took over, I observed the staff ask questions about these particular activities. The principal stated that there were no minimums required and in previous schools, there had been attendance by almost all of the staff because they wanted to be there. They were intrinsically motivated. I have noticed a change in this staff since the switch in administration. I recently attended an after school event at the school and was astounded by the participation of the staff. This spoke volumes to me of what intrinsic motivation can do and ways to inspire it in your staff as a school leader.
A large of education and teaching is the creativity that comes with finding new ways for helping students learn. We wouldn't want to stifle that by
Pink and Sergiovanni both discuss the notion of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators, and their impact on productivity in the work force. Despite previous beliefs that extrinsic motivation, such as monetary rewards, leads to stronger performance, both Pink and Sergiovanni argue that intrinsic motivators are the root cause for optimal performance among workers. These new findings debunk previous ideologies on motivation, with Pink actually going as far as stating that extrinsic motivators stem creativity. Overall, both individuals agree that self-autonomy and personal values/beliefs are the main factors in motivating individuals.
ReplyDeleteAs educators, many individuals have set their heart and soul into the profession and find their own intrinsic motivators to do their best work. As many of us would agree, most teachers stay past their contracted hours and do so not because of the money, but because they know it is the right thing to do in order to create the best learning environment for their students. When extrinsic motivators are introduced, teachers lose sight of the main purpose for the profession: helping the lives of children. In fact, in Washington D.C., the school district offers incentive pay for their teachers. However, a recent article revealed the atrocious retention rate for individual teachers and suggests that this pay program might not be so successful (I really hope I read that article correctly and am not providing incorrect information).
As future leaders, we need to offer a balance of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. From the school district level, school systems need to offer competitive salaries that can help recruit and retain the best and brightest teachers. Once these individuals are hired by districts, their local supervisors (principals or other administrative positions) then need to provide a work environment that encourages autonomy and trust. This trust will lead these individuals to motivate themselves and put forth their best effort. Once teachers know they are respected and trusted, then you will get the most out of them and they will accomplish wonderful things in our schools.
Pink and Sergiovanni both break down motivation based on intrinsic and extrinsic. They both seem to agree that intrinsic motivation is more powerful than extrinsic motivation (which is contrary to what many people may have thought). One thing that Pink mentioned in the TED video that I found interesting was that intrinsic motivation and rewards are more powerful for solving complex problems, such as the “Candle Problem”. He stated that extrinsic rewards were better when the problem was simpler, such as the “Candle Problem for Dummies”. I find this interesting, especially with the new design of curriculum and course standards, we are moving to a more complex, problem solving school system, with less emphasis placed on drill and kill and memorization. Clearly, according to Pink and Sergiovanni, in this new age educational system, intrinsic motivation and rewards will be far better to drive people to come to solutions.
ReplyDeleteRewards get played out in education both extrinsically and intrinsically. First, extrinsically we are rewarded with a contract. Since there is no difference in pay other than your years of service, every teacher is “rewarded” by a continuing contract and their job security. Our school administrators reward us with a job for the following school year and allow us to move onto the next salary step. Intrinsically, we are motivated by our students. We are driven to deliver the best possible lesson, create a fair and opportunistic assessment, and develop an accepting classroom by the looks on our student’s faces, the progress they make, and the feeling we get when they break through a barrier. I believe that both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards help to improve our practice, although the latter is more powerful for student understanding and the former drives us out of fear for our jobs.
Motivating our staff to do everything they can to benefit the students, including motivating the students, has serious implications on the way we approach problems. I believe that school leaders need to find a way to intrinsically motivate their staff, but also allow them to see why each semester, each month, each day, and each block can be the most important time in a student’s life. We need to show our staff the bigger picture, and that if we do everything we can for the students, the extrinsic rewards such as a higher salary and job for the following school year will take care of itself.
As every one has already stated there is a common thread between Sergiovanni and Pink in that they both feel that intrinsic motivation proves more productive than extrinsic. Pink was able to demonstrate that by discussing the concept of “what science knows and what business does” that can be changed to “what education does”. Pink brings to the front many studies that show that the larger the reward the poorer the performance. Sergiovanni, when discussing the felt tip marker study with preschool students, echoes this sentiment.
ReplyDeleteThere are few and far between extrinsic rewards in education, depending on where you teach and what you teach rewards can be as simple as a pat on the back to teacher of the year and for many that is enough to maintain their motivation. We reward our students with student of the week, work on a special board or a special lunch but do those rewards actually work for all students. As teachers we are looking at a “reward” for our students doing well with better pay, better recognition but will this truly motivate teachers to want to better or will this back fire and produce additional stress for teachers. As for other rewards personally they are not motivating for me or many of my fellow teachers. I do not aspire to be a teacher of the year and monetary awards do not interest me. When teachers are pressured to improve student learning become in fear of their jobs teaching and learning, for the most part does not increase.
As we move forward looking at 21st Centaury skills we need to begin the shift away from mostly intrinsic skills and balance them with intrinsic skills. What students are learning is if I do this I get a reward so the motivation is the reward not the actual skill or concept. We are not preparing student to be future leaders but workers who believe they can be leaders. As future administrators we need to look at how to find the appropriate balance for both students and staff.
ReplyDeleteThey both clearly highlighted the importance of intrinsic motivation for developing truly productive and effective workplaces. What Sergiovanni defined as a moral focus to motivation – doing it because it is right, Pink defined as the intrinsic motivation – doing it because you want to do your part. I see them as very closely tied – your morals drive you to get things done. When you are morally, and in turn intrinsically, motivated your work has meaning and you put more of yourself into getting it done.
It was interesting to see how in both the adult world (Pink’s example with monetary incentives to complete tasks quickly) and the kid world (Sergiovanni’s example with the preschoolers and markers) actually took away motivation and completely stifled creativity. How sad on both accounts and yet it continues to be a popular model of “management”.
The articles made me think about how we are motivating our kids (both my students and my son!). Are we teaching kids to be intrinsically motivated? Is that something you can teach or is that something they need to discover on their own? Are we relying on extrinsic motivators to get the kids to comply and just get things done? How can we make that shift to help kids be more intrinsically motivated to do well in school and become productive citizens?
Outside of job stability, a decent wage, and a great calendar, I’m not sure there are other extrinsic motivators teachers get. Those are aspects of the job that are known and accepted – they are not used as “carrots” to improve practice in any way.
Teachers get rewards in so many other ways – acknowledgement from a parent or administrator, kids having those “aha!” moments, seeing changes for the better in behavior or independence, etc. Those are all things that have no monetary value, but that build up your intrinsic motivation to improve your own teaching and impact your students’ learning as well.
I would want to develop a staff that is intrinsically motivated. I have always felt strongly that in the world of special ed, especially in the more low-incidence populations, you have to love the kids first. You can be taught skills and techniques, but that desire to do what’s best for this group of kids, what I can now call that moral and intrinsic motivation, cannot be taught. As an instructional leader I would hope to be able to bring people into the profession who have that motivation and be able to support them into being an effective educator. I would also hope that on the flip side I could help people who are not intrinsically motivated to be in this educational field to refocus their attention on an area that may be more suitable for them. I think the notion of autonomy that Pink mentioned is hugely overlooked in education. With the increased need for accountability and focus on “core curriculum”, a teacher’s autonomy is being stripped away. A good leader is one who will see the value in their staff and trust their decisions in the classroom – giving them back some autonomy.
Sergiovanni and Pink discuss motivation in the workplace through intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. They both agreed that intrinsic motivators are more effective and that extrinsic motivators can actually stifle creativity and narrow the thinking.
ReplyDeleteIn education, most teachers are intrinsically motivated through their love of children and education. Many teachers speak of the "a-ha moments" when a concept clicks and the overwhelming reward they receive when the child "gets it". This is an intrinsic motivator. They are also rewarded with comments from other teachers, parents and administration.
Extrinsic motivators are still present in education. More so with students than with teachers. I have often wondered if we are stifling the creative problem solving in students and after listening to Pink, I am truly concerned. It really makes sense that when people work for a reward they narrow their thinking and stop looking outside the box for answers. As educators, it is our job to help students find the intrinsic rewards in education by teaching them the love of learning.
As a future administrator, it is my responsibility to create a working environment where teachers and students are encouraged to find the intrinsic rewards. I think the first way to accomplish this is to always remember why we are here and to base every decision on what is best for the kids.
Clearly everyone agrees on the definitions of extrinsic (rewards-based) and intrinsic (self-based) motivation. Pink and Sergiovanni both agree that if we want more out our "workers" we need to trust in systems that promote intrinsic motivation. Pink defines those needs as autonomy, mastery, and purpose. In the Sergiovanni text, Herzberg's research concludes that "what is rewarding gets done." Both Pink and Sergiovanni agree that you cannot give someone intrinsic motivation but that you can build a climate for people to be motivated intrinsically by encouraging feelings of competence, control and efficacy. (Competence = Mastery, Control = Autonomy, Efficacy = Purpose) As future leaders, we need to think about that. While there are always things that must me done in schools, the how they are done can be left to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I have a new teacher assistant this year. We must label the shelves so that the children know where to put the toys away when they are finished using them. I left it up to her HOW she wanted to label the shelves. She was super motivated to do it once she knew this was her project. (CONTROL/AUTONOMY and EFFICACY/PURPOSE) And she was rewarded because the classroom was easy to clean up (COMPETENCE/MASTERY)
While this example sounds simplistic, it really works for motivating young students to behave. For a student who is putting their feet on the table (a no-no) I will say, "You can put your feet flat on the floor like this, or around the chair legs like this. Which is best for you?" The child always picks one of the choices (CONTROL/AUTONOMY) and I win because his feet are no longer on the table. I didn't need to bribe him, or yell at him. And a simple, "You did it." is all the reward he needs (COMPETENCE/MASTERY).
Building a culture in your school to intrinsically motivate people can be accomplished if you want to get the very best out of your teachers and students. It is not always easy. Telling people what to do it easier. You have to trust people to let them figure out the "how" to do something once they know what they "must" do.
This chapter and video led me create a what NOT to do list for leadership.
Do not micromanage people
Do not give orders that are too explicit
Do not mistrust that the people around me know what they are
doing.
After all, Pink said, "Self direction leads to more engagement." and that is what we want for students and teachers.
I feel late to the party, as the topics have been so well discussed already. Here's my two cents, nonetheless. As leaders, we need to know what motivates our staff. Without this knowledge, we’re killing creativity. We need to create a climate where what is rewarding gets done and what is good/right gets done. Obviously, teachers aren’t in the profession for money, so as a leader, it’s imperative to work towards reducing the possible negative impact of restrictions on teachers/their craft so that barriers to creativity are reduced. There’s little left in what brought many teachers initially to teach, so instead of managing every aspect of the day, a leader should “manage” the obstacles preventing teachers from doing what is good/right by students. Perhaps it’s providing time for intellectual conversations, meaningful learning, or the gift of time to implement new ideas and then share successes/failures in hopes of learning a new technique. I was struck by the anecdote about the school that issued a rule requiring teachers to stay until 3:30 and the subsequent “change in the teachers’ attachment to their work” (25). Once there became a defined work day, there came a shift from intrinsic and moral work ethic to extrinsic.
ReplyDeleteThis links to rewards/sources of motivation in education in that often work time is defined – makes sense – we have contracts. This goes off a theory that people can’t be trusted to do what’s right, rather people must be managed instead of being viewed as capable professionals that would intrinsically maximize efforts to realize benefits for not self-interests but instead for those of the whole group/organization.
Many times, administrators “reward” educators with observation ratings (e.g. highly effective statuses that translate to pay raises/bonuses and/or performance-based pay scales) or even teaching/course load (“better” classes for teachers with lengthier service at the school). Other times, rewards can be more simple like dress down days, that while appreciated, perhaps cause less impact on motivation than higher rewards (which parallels the idea of both Pink and Sergiovanni – the higher the type of reward for a creativity-driven process, the lower or worse the output).
While well-intended, rewards in education starve creativity because, on average, educators are motivated to achieve at higher levels because of response from students (the “eureka” moments; the desire to instill interest in a personal interest; the sense of duty in preparing youth for their futures, etc.). Large/high rewards shouldn’t be used in education for reasons Pink and Sergiovanni suggest: such rewards kill creativity driven industries, which is what education should be. Therefore, an instructional leader must work to develop a school culture that honors the creative work of teachers and students alike, so that instead of tying rewards to processes (idea of what gets rewarded gets done), there is true value felt by all in the work and mission of the school (shift to the idea of what is rewarding and good is done) regardless of perceiving any self-benefit from the task.
I think the biggest connection that can be made between the two definitions is that productivity and quality of work go way up when people are performing a task for intrinsic value. The "Candle Problem" in Dan Pink's speech was very interesting because I do think that sometimes people get too narrow-minded with their work when they are doing it solely for extrinsic value. I think that if you asked managers in a variety of fields, I think they would all say that in order to motivate their staff, extrinsic rewards are absolutely necessary. The research that was cited in both the reading and video make, in my opinion, a completely one sided argument against such rewards.
ReplyDeleteI feel that when someone enters the teaching profession, they really do join for the intrinsic factors. They don't become a teacher for the money, but rather the moment a student truly understand what is being taught. I fear that with the current push towards a monetary bonus, an extrinsic reward, many educators will start to lose their intrinsic motivation. Teaching is not a mechanical profession with a clearcut method and goal. There are too many factors for that. With this new push, I think teaching performance and student learning will diminish, as it will no longer be "for the love of teaching," but rather for the love of the almighty dollar.
By helping to cultivate a "we are all in this together" perspective, I think the intrinsic rewards will keep a staff away from being competitive from one another. I currently work at a school where, if there were bonuses for overall student performance on SOLs, we wouldn't get too many. Yet teachers have a strong sense in helping one another and sharing information to help teach students across all abilities. I feel we have this because we are in it together. My students will be someone else's next year and so on. Why not do what is right by the student and let everything else fall into place?