I don’t disagree, Mike. This post is very useful as a primer on Wikipedia, for one thing. The history you provide, the links to sources for follow up reading, and the shift from static to dynamic tools to start an inquiry project ought to be built upon in teacher prep programs. This is a great example of the kind of information classroom teachers at the middle and secondary level can put to immediate use. What links Wikipedia and makes Perplexity not so perplexing? Old fashioned critical thinking.
I do have a quibble with your imaginary history teacher. While I appreciate their warning to students about the difference between simply citing a source—any source—for a public fact and citing a credible and verifiable source, I wonder why they threaten to deduct “points” from the research section of the grading rubric?
You recall Ethan Mollicks list of things students should consider when deciding whether to turn to AI or not. The relevant “point” Mollick highlighted is “Do not use AI if your goal is to earn points.” The upshot seems to be “Have a genuine desire to learn something for you, not for your teacher.”
I also worry about the tension between teaching toward self-regulation/intrinsic motivation and traditional uses of points and percentages to motivate compliance behavior. What advice do you have for teachers who are following Mollicks advice?
I like your last point in the first paragraph Terry. "Old fashioned critical thinking." It seems to be the answer to everything, doesn't it?
I understand your concern about deducting points from the research section. In fact, I thought the longest and hardest about that section as I wrote this. For me, I wanted to draw a distinction between "accusing a student of using AI" when a student doesn't cite a fact and "emphasizing the need for robust citations in general" in this "new" research age. The idea was to make sure my imaginary history students knew that a lack of a citation is not automatically connected to my comments about using AI, but instead a best practice that I want to instill in students in general terms. Does that make sense?
I think Mollick's point works well for self-motivated, upper-level students. Remember that he is teaching at UPenn. For the average student though, I think grades, points, and extrinsic motivation are a very real part of education that cannot be eliminated. I think back to Freakonomics, which proved to an extent that incentives matter. In one of their experiments they offered "cash for grades." It didn't work for all, but it did work for some.
For many students, if we're being honest, they are in school because they have to be. Ideally we'd love for them to be intrinsically motivated towards learning. But to me, grades and points should be thought of as a useful "starter motivator" that eventually moves students towards learning for learning's sake.
In sum, I would say that teachers should know their students. For some, the "genuine desire" encouragement can/should be enough. For others, you might have to lean on the extrinsic motivators to move the needle.
The research on the damage grades do to motivation is compelling. It’s hard to make a case using empirical evidence that they are somehow good for learners. I can’t argue with your belief that extrinsic motivators are essential for learning, but I could make a strong evidence-based case that extrinsic rewards destroy instrinsic motivation with research covering decades. Part of my dissertation is about this problem. Most teachers can’t imagine teaching without them. Did you read the post I wrote for Nick about grades and portfolios drawing from my dissertation? You might take a look at it. Have you read any of the research on academic achievement motivation?
I don’t disagree, Mike. This post is very useful as a primer on Wikipedia, for one thing. The history you provide, the links to sources for follow up reading, and the shift from static to dynamic tools to start an inquiry project ought to be built upon in teacher prep programs. This is a great example of the kind of information classroom teachers at the middle and secondary level can put to immediate use. What links Wikipedia and makes Perplexity not so perplexing? Old fashioned critical thinking.
I do have a quibble with your imaginary history teacher. While I appreciate their warning to students about the difference between simply citing a source—any source—for a public fact and citing a credible and verifiable source, I wonder why they threaten to deduct “points” from the research section of the grading rubric?
You recall Ethan Mollicks list of things students should consider when deciding whether to turn to AI or not. The relevant “point” Mollick highlighted is “Do not use AI if your goal is to earn points.” The upshot seems to be “Have a genuine desire to learn something for you, not for your teacher.”
I also worry about the tension between teaching toward self-regulation/intrinsic motivation and traditional uses of points and percentages to motivate compliance behavior. What advice do you have for teachers who are following Mollicks advice?
I like your last point in the first paragraph Terry. "Old fashioned critical thinking." It seems to be the answer to everything, doesn't it?
I understand your concern about deducting points from the research section. In fact, I thought the longest and hardest about that section as I wrote this. For me, I wanted to draw a distinction between "accusing a student of using AI" when a student doesn't cite a fact and "emphasizing the need for robust citations in general" in this "new" research age. The idea was to make sure my imaginary history students knew that a lack of a citation is not automatically connected to my comments about using AI, but instead a best practice that I want to instill in students in general terms. Does that make sense?
I think Mollick's point works well for self-motivated, upper-level students. Remember that he is teaching at UPenn. For the average student though, I think grades, points, and extrinsic motivation are a very real part of education that cannot be eliminated. I think back to Freakonomics, which proved to an extent that incentives matter. In one of their experiments they offered "cash for grades." It didn't work for all, but it did work for some.
For many students, if we're being honest, they are in school because they have to be. Ideally we'd love for them to be intrinsically motivated towards learning. But to me, grades and points should be thought of as a useful "starter motivator" that eventually moves students towards learning for learning's sake.
In sum, I would say that teachers should know their students. For some, the "genuine desire" encouragement can/should be enough. For others, you might have to lean on the extrinsic motivators to move the needle.
The research on the damage grades do to motivation is compelling. It’s hard to make a case using empirical evidence that they are somehow good for learners. I can’t argue with your belief that extrinsic motivators are essential for learning, but I could make a strong evidence-based case that extrinsic rewards destroy instrinsic motivation with research covering decades. Part of my dissertation is about this problem. Most teachers can’t imagine teaching without them. Did you read the post I wrote for Nick about grades and portfolios drawing from my dissertation? You might take a look at it. Have you read any of the research on academic achievement motivation?