Something that keeps coming up with colleagues is a conversation about motivations. At my school, there is a general movement away from the contrived motivations of grading scales, toward an emphasis on the process of learning and the intrinsic human tendency to explore and investigate. We are learning machines, and so it is argued that we should be set loose to learn, not constrained to do so for some manufactured or abstracted reason(s). "Unbridle the learner within," seems to be a sort of mantra among us.
Diligent skeptics in the field argue that there are necessarily structures that keep focus, maintain order, and teach discipline (none of which occurs naturally to most young students). This is true, of course, but I argue that the ultimate rationale for those structures should be to better permit effective and natural learning to take place, rather than structure and discipline for its own sake.
Generating enthusiasm, building motivation, and then channeling that motivation toward the less exciting, but necessary, aspects of exploration--the aspects of science that separates it from relatively chaotic and inefficient "stabs in the dark" that constituted the proto-scientific curiosity of past millennia--can be as effective as fear- or penalty-based schemes.
What I'm talking about is tapping into motivations that are intrinsic, rather than creating new and "artificial" ones. We are driven to discover, to master, and to be a part of something greater than ourselves. We are driven to be both individuals and part of a collective. Our species has this duality to thank for much of our success. We have transcended biological evolution by employing a diversity of continually evolving ideas and a need to exchange those ideas.
So in continually discussing all of this with colleagues and researchers, I can't help but see that there is a contradiction between what we are trying to do in the classroom--what the research tells us works best--and what we see in our larger society. If successful, we are creating collaborative, exploratory, inventive, enthusiastic citizens who are adept at tapping into their own passions, and applying intense effort for the collective good of their community. These concerned and connected citizens then step out into a world where competition abounds and decisions are routinely made which lead to excesses for some and deprivation, even death, for others.
We, the "givers-back" who have dedicated ourselves to the future of our society by choosing this field are modeling those same empathetic, connection-based motivations for our students. And, when successful, we see the best of humanity come out of them. But the world we live in does not necessarily reflect this value system.
I was asked in grad school whether schools should be charged with creating a new social order; whether it is our place as teachers to envision and move toward what might be the next best steps in our cultural evolution, or if such a charge revealed a touch of arrogance and self-importance. I feel that our job description includes an element of vision, but that even though we are the adults in our environment(s), among "mere" children, our students are as much a part of the vision as we are. We are increasingly teaching a "student-centered" paradigm, and as such, our classroom values reflect, more and more, much of what is in their nature, in our nature.
And research shows this to be true. Clearly, we are hard/soft-wired for empathy and collaboration, for creativity and exploration.
Much of the dysfunction in our world seems rooted in values that don't appear to be intrinsic in our nature; values that are taught and scared into us. To me, the solution seems to necessitate some sort of revolution in social consciousness, and we, with our exponentially increasing ability to share and create ideas, are poised to launch such a revolution. It has already started.
I imagine a future where the invisible hand of the market has little or no connection to material wealth, but is all about the things that motivate us intrinsically: mastery, creativity, participation, and purpose. The sense of being "really useful" is powerful and important, and can replace the sense of being materially powerful (wealthy) as the prime motivator. I get excited thinking about the sort of competitions that would emerge from this connective and collective will.
And, I believe, the only thing holding us back from this shift is a concerted effort by a majority. Many are in a struggle for survival, and making choices that simply allow the next day to come, but this doesn't have to be. We are thousands of times more productive than our isolated ancestors, with 10,000 years of technology behind us. If we were to band together, focus our attention on meeting the basic needs of everyone, we could end that sense of struggle. We could free humanity to do what we do best. We could set the stage for the new motivational schemes that I'm describing.
Skeptics tell me that without a struggle for survival, "human laziness" will turn our society into an "idiocracy." "How else do you explain multigenerational welfare families?" they ask. But I have seen that this is not the case. Just look at the children. Children are transparent, less complicated examples of our human nature. And I have seen them respond when given the opportunity to be a part of something, instead of the mandate to do so. When people see a group of others celebrating a collaborative effort, we can't help but long to join in. Freed from the self-centered and individualistic biases trained into us, I am confident we would be continually participating in this sort of collective enterprise.
