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)

On using Wikipedia

Slate magazine has an interesting interview with a disaffected co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. I like what he says about how to use Wikipedia, or any other reference resource:

What Wikipedians themselves would say—and I agree with them on this one—is that Wikipedia has finally awakened in people an understanding that even carefully edited resources can frequently be wrong and have to be treated with skepticism and that ultimately we are responsible for what we believe. That means constantly going back and checking what we thought was established or what we thought we knew. Wikipedians often say that you should never trust any one source, including Wikipedia.

That’s not anything new; it’s always been the case that you should check your source against another source. It’s just that the way that the Internet has exposed the editorial process has, for more critical-minded people, made it absolutely plain just how much responsibility we ourselves bear to believe the right thing. – Larry Sanger in Schulz, 2010

I also agree with what he says about how he personally uses internet resources:

Which resources I turn to greatly depend on what sort of information I’m looking for. One of my favorite information resources is Google Maps and Bing Maps. I’ve often used Google Scholar for an essay I’ve been working on lately. When I’m looking for some quick fact, of the sort one finds from an almanac or other reference book, I generally search in Google and then pick a non-Wikipedia source. If there doesn’t seem to be anything as efficient, I’ll fall back on the Wikipedia source. If I’m doing serious research, I don’t spend much time on Wikipedia at all, I’m afraid. I do look in on Citizendium’s offerings from time to time, when I think it might have something on the topic. I also not infrequently grab various books from my bookshelves, the old-fashioned way. – Larry Sanger in Schulz, 2010

We’ll start this year with Wikipedia unblocked, but I’m working on a lesson on how to use it properly.

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.

wiki-nav-bar — 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.