|
Copyright © Louis Schmier and Atwood Publishing.
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:32:47 -0500 (EST)
Random Thought: On Motivation, III
Good morning. Still reflecting on this critical element of
teaching and learning. As I was saying, I find that most of us in higher
education don't plan motivation. Why? I am sure there are as many
answers as there are profs and teachers. It certainly isn't because there
is a dearth of resource material out there to which we can refer. It
certainly isn't because the host of hard-working teaching and learning
centers are ignorant or ignore the issue. It certainly isn't because we
don't know how to research a subject we want to research. Maybe far too
many of us profs never thought of it; maybe we would have to think deep
about ourselves; maybe we would have to focus on the people in the
classroom instead of merely the subject; maybe we think that what is call
"extrinsic motivators," those cracked whips and tossed pieces of fish, are
all we need; maybe it's all of the above; maybe it's none of the above.
On thing about motivation has become clear to me. We, the
teachers must be motivated to motivate if we are to motivate. To motivate,
you can't, you won't, just plan and act. You can just go through the
motions. You must first dream and believe. You have to be sincere. You
have to have that fire in your soul, that burning in your belly, that
heart throb to pursue it. That is critical because you can't work against
your own beliefs, feelings, and thoughts. Now, I am not talking about
being turned on by your subject. I have found the greatest skill needed
for successful teaching is not the bank of information; it is the ability
and desire to get along with, establish a relationship with, and connect
with students. It impacts every aspect of your teaching. Your
relationships with students make or break your teaching. And, what you
believe, truly believe, deeply believe about students--and yourself--will
influence what you think is the problem and what the solution may be.
What you are is what you do. Your efforts are mirrored into your genuine
thoughts. When you see only the unmotivated in students, for example, you
run the danger of becoming what you dislike. Classes will unfold as you
expect. Your view of life in the classroom will be the way you live it.
When you see the positive or negative possibilities in the classroom, they
will occur for you.
With that said and done, I do have to say, from both what I have
studied and from my own personal and professional experience, I'm not sure
a person can motivate another person. I'm not sure a person can truly
motivate anyone other than him/herself. I'm not all that convinced that
one person can "tell" another person how to feel and act other than
him/herself. I don't think there are attitudinal Brother Dans floating
around who, with a laying on of hands can proclaim, "Be Motivated," and
you will throw away the crutches proclaiming, "I AM MOTIVATED!" Motivation
has nothing to do with what is done to people.
If I am right, then why am I bothering. What am I talking about?
What responsibility to we teachers then have? What is all this stuff
about planning motivation? Well, the aim is not or, at least, should not
be to motivate students. The aim to is create relationships and to
connect. People will want to grow when the surroundings are encouraging.
People will shrivel when they are not. Motivation is what students
generate inside themselves for themselves when they dare to be open to
change and experience growth. Words and actions will stick to sticky
souls, not ones with teflon coatings. And too many students sticky
spirits have been coated with negative and restricting non-stick teflon. I
plan motivation throughout the semester in the hope it will stimulate a
student to begin an inner conversation with him/herself, in the hope that
he or she will start scraping off that non-stick surface. That
conversation is far more important than anything I can say, that scraping
is more significant than anything I can do.
Remember James Escalante in "Stand and Deliver?" Get a video and
closely watch that movie. Who was he and what did he do? He was a
believer. He believed that everyone whom others saw as losers were
winners. Those devils were to him angels. He treated everyone of those
students as an angel even if they had come to believe the opposite. He
relished what others saw as indigestible. He valued what others threw
away. He refused to cede defeat even if the students themselves felt and
acted defeated. He believed the students' ladder was merely leaning on
the wrong wall. That's critical because you have to "be" inside before
you can "do." outside. He never had five great classes in a row. He had
five days of great believing in a row. That faith, like love, however,
could not be forced. He saw and appreciated the beautiful in what others
criticized as ugly. He heard the music in what others condemned as noise.
He refused to accept that their future was mired in the swamp of despair
and fear. And so, he consciously did three things. First, as he thought,
so he was. He worked hard to help the students work on their inner "be,"
not merely on their outer math. He helped these supposed hapless students
believe for themselves what they had dared not believe, that they weren't
dumb and could learn. He helped them see for themselves that they were
smart and capable, and he challenged them to challenge themselves. He
refused to mute the voices within. He didn't deafen them with loud,
thunderous "cannots." Instead, he worked to help them evoke from within
themselves a "this can be done." Second, he created a supportive,
encouraging, caring, positive, safe, secure, happy, environment. He
valued them as something too precious to be tossed away. And finally, he
was there with them, not as that distant sideline cheerleader, as an
engaged on-the-field coach. He persuaded them that what he had to offer
was important to them as human beings. He showed them that it really
wasn't about math. It wasn't math that burned in their belly, it was
their dignity. It wasn't math that fired their soul, it was their
self-respect. He helped them see that they could dream and that their
dreams could come true; that they, who were condemned and believed they
were losers, could be winners. He didn't do three things. He didn't
dictate; he coerce; he didn't manipulate. He did one thing: he
persuaded. That one thing he did, slowly influenced the students to do
their thing.
So, I think asking, "how can we motivate students" is asking the
wrong question. Besides, we've tried and are still trying every trick in
the book. We've cajoled, enticed, threatened, promised, praised,
chastised, rewarded. We're adding or deducting grades for attendance;
we're giving extra credit for extra work; we're placing on Dean's List or
on probation; we're recognizing or ignoring on Honors Day. We're dropping
lowest grade, doubling highest grade, curving all the grades, supposedly
inflating grades. Does any of this whip cracking or fish tossing really
work? If it did, why are so many of us loudly and constantly moaning
about how unmotivated the students are?
The point is not to make students learn, but to catalyze
them to stimulate their
inner, natural drive to learn. You see, I don't think students aren't
motivated. They are. They just aren't turned on to what a lot of us are
teaching them in the way we're teaching them without apparent reason and
purpose of teaching what and how we're teaching.
Think I am wrong? Have you ever notice how what we would call
unmotivated students, what one professor recently called "gazing zombies"
are alive outside of class? Outside the buildings they mull around,
laugh, smile, move, and talk. When they enter the buildings or classroom
rooms it all gets turned off as if they're heeding telepromters that are
flashing "Don't Smile." "Don't Talk." "Don't Move." And, don't think that
among these walking dead aren't some of our honors students, scholarship
scholarships, award winners. Outside the classrooms, ah. The supposed
catatonic students are enthusiastic, industrious, alert, intent,
confident, patient, consciencous, faithful, loyal, friendly, cooperative,
passionate; they focus, concentrate, work with others, have pride. They
display all the ingredients not only of motivation, but of success. In the
class they play small; outside of class they play large. In the class
they don't honor their core values or utilizing their gifts; outside the
classroom they are accessing their abilities and power. They are
experimental, adventurous, creative, imaginative. In the classroom they
are motionless; outside the class they are in motion. They work sweat and
strain and work their tails off in a sport, excitedly play a video game,
crawl all over a sorority float, give after hours and even a weekend for a
fraternity charity drive, play in the band, act on the stage, practice an
instrument hours on end, play at night in gigs, avidly solve problems,
work on cars. But, not in class. An exaggeration you say. Maybe.
Nevertheless, why are so many of these supposedly unmotivated students in
class so animated out there outside of class? Later my experience and
take on that....
|
|