I've posted lately on the "mind-set" issue (here and here ) and it seems the more I read the more information I find reinforcing this idea . Here's an article on ScienceDaily highlighting a study that followed 1,000 students from grade school through high school and documented the subjects they did well in and the subjects they were interested in. One of the outcomes from the study said:
"Children in early grades may like a subject in which they don't feel very competent, or they may feel competent in a subject in spite of poor grades. But by the end of high school, children generally feel most interested in subjects in which they feel they are the strongest."
Is this evidence that we're forcing our children to focus on getting things "right" instead of focusing their attention on growth and learning? Do the grades we require for demonstrating mastery reduce their overall focus in areas that they may have interest?
I'm not against grades - we need some standard for performance. But should we have secondary - and equal - areas of measurement that allow students to show their ability to continue to learn and grow? What if we created an index - a combination of mastery grades and learning and growth values? Would that create a better representation of the student (or in the business world - the employee?) Should performance reviews include this kind of index? Does knowledge work really have two categories - subject matter experts and knowledge aggregators? Do these two categories have different motivational requirements? More questions than answers.
Recent Comments