kitchen table math, the sequel: on motivation

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

on motivation

If you don't subscribe to the Direct Instruction listserv, you should.

Besides learning a lot of good stuff about good teaching techniques and other education issues, you get to witness an epic battle betwixt good and evil. In this case, evil is personified by Gerald Bracey who fancies himself as the gadfly of the board after joining a few months back. Problem is that Jerry is out of his league on the DI board as was demonstrated by this recent exchange on motivation.

Bracey:

Of course, no one mentions anything as soft and squishy as intrinsic motivation.

...

My comment on intrinsic motivation had to do with learning. Skinner could not account for his own behavior without it, although he tried.


Martin Kozloff (aka Professor Plum):

Intrinsic motivation is semantic nonsense.

Motivation. Motive force. Alleged to be "behind" or prior to action.

How do you know if a person "is" motivated?

They DO something.

WHY did they do something?

They were motivated.

Uh huh. Not too circular.

Extrinsic motivation. That is, the event towards which one is moving is external. Like what? A meal. She is cooking so that she can eat. He is training so that he will finish a race.

Yes, the event is outside, but why would anyone prepare a meal unless eating it felt good? Why would anyone run a race unless they anticipated a pleasing outcome.

In other words, the external event is NOT what motivates. It is merely the means to an end---which is feeling. Which is INTERNAL.

Therefore, so-called extrinsic motivation is really intrinsic. {Score one for me.]

If you say that intrinsic motivation might be wanting to do well, I'd like to know where you got the definition of "well." Was that intrinsic? Or was it gotten from the social environment?

And why would anyone want to do well? Because that is considered important in the culture. And where is this culture? It is OUTSIDE the person. So, intrinsic motivation is really extrinsic. [Score two for me.]

In summary, the words are kakos.


Finally, you don't need the concept of motivation to account for behavior---if by account you mean answering the question Why is she doing that.

The answer (if you include the concept of motivation) is that she is motivated to do so, which means nothing more than she wants to. Which is as helpful as explaining avoidance behavior by saying a person is afraid.

How do you know they are afraid?

They avoid the situation.

How come?

They are afraid.

How do you know?

They avoid the situation.

How come?

Afraid.

World without end, Amen.

[Score three for me. A hat trick.]


James MacDonald:

I, and possibly other members of the list, would like you to write complete
thoughts, including the evidence or rationale behind your comments. You
made a comment about Ohio State football, but did not say what the problems
were. You mention that Skinner could not account for his own behavior, but
do not give examples of this. Essentially, I am requesting a scholarly
discourse - not the out of the blue, non sequiturs you write.

Bracey:

I don't do pablum.


Kozloff:

Mais non, mon ami, I must disagree.

Pablum is what you do best!

[Come on, young Bracey. That was funny, and you know it.]

To Be Continued?

4 comments:

Ben Calvin said...

What's the link for the Direct Instruction listserve?

KDeRosa said...

To Join the Listserv for Direct Instruction/Effective School Practices, email to:
MAJORDOMO@LISTS.UOREGON.EDU this message: SUBSCRIBE DI

Catherine Johnson said...

I just sent my email "subscribe" request, so I hope I'm on.

Gerald Bracey was a thorn in Ed's side back when he was working on the CA history-social science project.

Doug Sundseth said...

Apparently Bracey also doesn't spell pabulum*.

* When the only definition the dictionary offers is the original spelling, I take that as clear (though common) error.