Notes on Daniel Pink’s Drive

Introduction

Introduces the idea of intrinsic motivation.

  • Describes Harlow and Deci‘s original studies that came up with the idea of intrinsic motivation. Note: Maslow (of Hierarchy of Needs fame) was Harlow’s student.
  • Three basic types of motivation (drives):
    • Motivation 1.0: Biological (need for food, drink, sex)
    • Motivation 2.0: Extrinsic (e.g. getting paid)
    • Motivation 3.0: Intrinsic

Chapter 1: Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Motivation

1. Wikipedia: a success almost entirely because contributors are willing to invest their time and energy for no reward; the very definition of intrinsic motivation.

  • Note: Despite my own challenges with students using Wikipedia as a reliable source, we use our own classroom Wiki extensively. Giving students projects with a clear goal in mind, but great freedom in execution (like the choose your own adventure stories), seems to tap into the same spirit that motivates the Wikipedia contributors.

2. Social operating systems: the basic, often invisible, assumption on which society runs.

  • Note: Good metaphor, but he explains it as if the development of our understanding of motivation paralleled human evolution/development. Pre-social humans were driven primarily by the biological imperative, like large animals still are, he claims. I am very uneasy about this sort of lazy extrapolation given how much we’re learning that differences between humans and animals are no where near where we thought they’d be, particularly given the social organization of many animals. He also ignores cross-cultural differences: different societies value self-actualization and other intrinsic motivation characteristics much differently than the WIERD one he seems to be describing.

3. Introduces behavioral economics (mentions Ariely): Humans are not anywhere near to being ideal, rational economic agents.

4. During the industrial revolution, work was mostly algorithmic (a worker could follow a clearly defined set of steps to get their job done), while now it’s mostly heuristic (workers have to come up with new things).

  • algorithmic work is being replaced by software and outsourced really fast (that’s globalization for you)
  • p. 30 – U.S. job growth – 30% algorithmic, 70% heuristic.
  • Note: Pink claims that heuristic work can’t be outsourced “generally”. He apparently wrote a book about it: A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. I may have to get that one, because, while I can see automation eliminating most algorithmic work, I don’t know why heuristic work is so difficult to outsource. Certainly there are local, cultural issues that would make things like advertising campaigns difficult for outsiders (and teaching would probably be hard to outsource too because most people don’t want to send their kids overseas for school), but a lot of other stuff is not that difficult for some creative person somewhere else to do; the world is, after all, Flat. Heuristic jobs are still going to be more abundant than algorithmic, but going heuristic no magic bullet: global competition is still going to be a major factor in the future.

Chapter 2

Baseline rewards: the basics people need in a job that earns them a living. Salary, a few perks, some benefits etc.

  • Below baseline rewards there is little motivation.
  • Above baseline rewards extrinsic rewards can be counterproductive.

Work vs. Play: Mark Twain: “Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”

When rewards don’t work:

  • When they are expected (see also post on Praise and Rewards) (called contingent rewards). If you do this, you’ll get this, does not work.
  • Deci et al., 1999: “tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation.”

(to be continued)

Spell check

I have a spelling checker,
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

– From “Spellchecker Poem” Zar (1994)

Do grammar and spell check actually help students learn? While it is Montessori-like in principle, making writing more like a self-correcting work, it removes much of the burden of correcting mistakes from the student because they are not forced to identify errors as the software makes suggestions for them.

In addition, grammar and spell checkers in particular, are not especially sensitive to context. The “Spellchecker Poem” (Zar, 1994; Hensel, 2008) passes through a spell checker without comment despite the obvious errors. While grammar checkers are getting better, accurately assessing context is a difficult challenge and fail when a person is trying to intentionally break the rules of grammar, which distracts the writer from their true intentions. Auto-correct functions can also be an incredible pain.

Spell and grammar check functions might work better if they just identified errors but not give students suggestions for corrections.

Of course, in writing this I am using spell check for almost every other word. They are an essential part of electronic writing and inseparable from computer use today. They are ubiquitous in academia and the workplace. Indeed it can be argued that their proper usage is a necessary skill to learn, although to most effectively use checkers you may very well need to know the rules of grammar that the checkers prevent students from learning.

I need to do a bit more research on the subject since I’m pretty sure I’m not the first to address this dilemma. I would really appreciate any suggestions about where to find publications about the topic (my Google-fu is weak with respect to this topic for some reason).

It would also probably be useful to create a lesson specifically dealing with the use of grammar and spell checking, probably using the “Spellchecker Poem“. My students do most of their writing electronically, either on the wiki or using word processing software so this is a topic I need to clarify my own thoughts on soon.

The Wiki

One of the most significant developments of the information revolution has been the creation of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and the software that makes it possible. Wikipedia has democratized the creation and sharing of information. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia, and anyone can access and adapt the information by observing simple and free license. And the information in Wikipedia is remarkably accurate, comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica (Giles, 2005).

The democratic creation and sharing of information shares much with the ethos of Montessori. There is a respect for the participation of anyone who wishes to contribute, contained within strong mechanisms for self-correction.

The basis for this success is the Wiki website software. There are quite a number of stand-alone or software suites that allow the creation of wikis. Wikimatrix, (2010) provides an extensive list, as well as questionnaires that offers suggestions about which wiki would best meet different users’ needs. Mediawiki, the software used by Wikipedia, is designed to be open and allow easy editing, while others give users and administrators greater control of what anyone can see and change.

Wikipedia uses the Mediawiki wiki software.

Based on its reliability, as proven by its ubiquity on the internet, its cost (free) and its ease of editing, I have chosen to use Mediawiki for my middle school wiki. The only significant difference from the standard Wikipedia installation is that I have password-protected access past the front page of the wiki to anyone not in the class. Once past the front page, a world of creation and community sharing opens up.

I have been using the wiki extensively for the last two years, and it is the central point of reference for my class. Students write their assignments on the wiki, they can find out what’s on the study-guides on the wiki, they often use it to communicate with their peers, and they have access to all the information and presentations created by their peers so they have a database of knowledge directly relevant to what we’re studying in the class.

Navigation bar for the middle-school wiki.

As a teacher, I believe our class wiki is one of the most powerful additions to the classroom community. It has been a great organizational aid for myself as well as the students. Presentation notes, video, reading assignments are all linked directly to the relevant study-guide. It drastically reduces the amount of paper necessary to hand out and to keep organized, which is especially important with our two-year cycle of work.

Yet, as with any type of new technology, it is important to get other, independent perspectives on the efficacy of the wiki. There are potential issues. Reaching the diversity of learning styles is an important element of teaching.

Assessment is, by necessity, an ongoing project. I will start by surveying my students to investigate how they use the wiki perceive its utility. The outcome of this investigation should provide guidelines for how the wiki needs to be adapted to be most useful and guide future research.