88 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2019
  2. Mar 2019
    1. How to Design Education for Adults

      This wonderful how-to by Southern New Hampshire University provided several well explained tips about what adults need in their learning environments, including their own learning theory, goals, relevant instruction, treatment by the teacher, and participation. These are important things to keep in mind when training working adults because it may have an impact on what information is offered and how it is presented. I will use the information in this article later to help me present content in a meaningful way for my working adult learners. I want the content to be as relevant and inviting to them as possible. 9/10

    1. Adults & Learning: How to Provide for Working Professionals

      The Digital Marketing Institute published this article to help those who provide training for professional adults. It echoes a lot of what I've read in other articles about teaching adults: The goals are different, and they have different needs from the instructor than children do. I liked that this article mentioned that many professional adults find technology to be a barrier, but I wish there were more information about it. The article discussed several of the biggest challenges for adult learners, which was a nice change from the quintessential adult learner article that focuses on what learners need. I also want to know what they don't need. Some of the barriers to learning include a lack of time, responsibilities, financial stressors, fear of technology, and trouble identifying the ideal learning path. 8/10

    1. Engaging  Adult  Learners

      This article discusses some attributes that are unique to adult learners, such as that their learning is selective, self-directed, and often focused on solving problems. Therefore, it is important that instructors enable students to be autonomous and show them why it is important. Often in my instructional design, I start with the WIIFM (What's In It For Me?). This article supports my idea that my adult learners will choose to learn when it can solve a problem for them. This article also discusses active learning from an adult perspective, such as Socratic teaching. 9/10

    1. Overview of Learning Theories

      The Berkeley Graduate Division published an interesting and straightforward table of learning theories. The table compares behaviorism, cognitive constructivism, and social constructivism in four ways: the view of knowledge, view of learning, view of motivation, and implications for teaching. This is an easy-to-read, quick resource for those who would like a side-by-side comparison of common theories. 9/10

    1. This page describes a method of teaching designed specifically for adults. The instructional design theory is Keller's "ARCS," which stands for attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction--all features that adult learning experiences should be characterized by. The text on this page is readable but the popups and graphics are a bit annoying. rating 3/5

  3. Jan 2019
    1. The desire to assist in disaster events in some way is broad [12, 18], but the mechanisms for enabling action in the form of on-line work or commitment, as with other causes, can beunclear [22, 28, 30].

      Evokes Kittur et al's work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations -- check to see what these papers actually cited

    2. Following Orlikowski [29], this analysis unites both practice-based [35]and structurational-basedinterpretations of coordination and social organization [8] to understand the nature of collective work in large, distributed,and emergent groups—groups that havesome existing common motivation to help but have little prior precedent for how that work might be conducted[21]

      Get Orlikowski's paper to demystify Gidden's work on structuration theory.

    3. In the domain of pet advocacy, the latent potential for crowd interaction comes fromintrinsic and extrinsic motivations—we focus on how that potentialwas transformed intoa viable form of distributed, decentralized cooperative work.

      Evokes Kittur, et al's work on peer production/crowd motivation

  4. Dec 2018
    1. Years of traditional education teaches students that what really matters is their grades, not their learning. Students know that while teachers might give lipspeak to “learning,” in the end, the grade is what everyone — teachers, parents, administrators, other students, and society at large — cares about.
    1. Working hard requires opportunity and encouragement in addition to intrinsic desire — indeed, opportunity and encouragement can often spark that intrinsic desire.

      This is crucial. Too often we talk about "intrinsic motivation" (and "grit" and "resilience"...) is if they were solely the province of the student, as if we don't bear any responsibility for the environment in which these qualities are expressed (or are not).

  5. Nov 2018
    1. Use of Slack in a FACE-TO-FACE class and how much it increased interaction; brings up a point that concerns me and that's what happens when the instructor/TA appear to be available 24/7 given the nature of Slack; good exploration of motivating students to use it (4/5)

  6. Sep 2018
    1. The UbD framework helps focus curriculum and teaching on the develop-ment and deepening of student understanding and transfer of learning (i.e., the ability to effectively use content knowledge and skill)

      When students have a deep understanding they can make connections and when they see that learning can be applied to the real world we have more motivated learners. I feel if students are motivated their ideas and capabilities are boundless. I believe having motivated learners should be a huge part of education, allowing kids to see their potential and how connections can be made.

  7. Aug 2018
    1. Motivations

      Details the wide ranging possibilities around motivation.

    2. Motivation and Purpose

      More on motivation as potentially expressed within the standard.

    3. The intent behind the creation of an Annotation or the inclusion of a particular Body or Target is an important property and represented by a Motivation resource.

      When looking at annotation as an engagement metric, it is important to understand the motivation of the person creating the annotation. This is anticipated in the model.

    1. Peer production successfully elicits contributions from diverse individu-als with diverse motivations – a quality that continues to distinguish it fromsimilar forms of collective intelligence

      Benkler makes a really bold statement here about how peer production differs from collective intelligence. Not sure I buy this argument.

      Brabner on crowdsourcing:

    2. Resolving the tensions between different motivations and incentives presentsa design challenge for peer production systems and other collective intelli-gence platforms. The complex interdependence of motivations, incentive sys-tems, and the social behaviors that distinct system designs elicit has led Krautand Resnick (2012) to call for evidence-based social design and Benkler (2009,2011) for cooperative human system design.

      Benkler cites research where incentives clash re: "material and prosocial rewards". Also, motivations can be temporally-based which demands flexibility in the incentive system as participants' reasons to contribute change and habits/practices/norms become entrenched.

    3. Evidence from this newer body of research shows that motivations are di-versewithincontributors and that different contributors have different mixesof motivations.

      Because motives are diverse and often entangled between intrinsic and extrinsic motives, as well as within/between different groups of participants, designing incentive systems is tricky. Recent research has found that impacts/effects of one type of incentive can't be separated from impacts/effects on other motivational drivers.

    4. The most important insight provided by some of this newer workis that contributors act for different reasons, and that theories based on a sin-gle uniform motivational model are likely to mischaracterize the motivationaldynamics.

      Field and lab experiments have found that motives are not uniform, are complex, vary due to contextual factors, involve social signaling, and have some temporal qualities.

    5. In particular, these neweraccounts have focused on social status, peer effects, prosocial altruism, groupidentification, and related social psychological dimensions of group behavior

      Again, tracking with organizational studies, intrinsic and extrinsic social psychological characteristics have been the focus of more recent work exploring motivations.

      See: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H0_DTmOspYZ3EwDJGVkBU2RaFeiibr6w?ogsrc=32

    6. hat said, a growing number of stud-ies also suggest that these motives interact with each other in unpredictableways and, as a result, are vulnerable to “crowding out” when the introduc-tion of extrinsic incentives undermines intrinsic motivation

      As in the organizational studies of peer production, motivation studies have been conducted increasingly through ethnographic observational and field studies.

      Benkler notes that the varied rationales and patterns for participating in peer production are not singular, and "interact with each other in unpredictable ways."

      Intrinsic motivations (internal rewards) tend to give way to extrinsic motivations (external rewards or consequence avoidance)

    7. Other foundational research on motivation in peer production by Lernerand Schankerman (2010) and others has explored why organizations, firmsand governments, rather than individual users, choose to participate in opensource software.

      More recent motivational studies have focused on organizations' motives for engaging in FLOSS projects as a means to innovate, build knowledge/learning capacity, diversify sources and collaborate.

    8. Despite their differences in emphasis,scope, and genre, all of these surveys support the claim that motivations inpeer production are diverse and heterogeneous.

      Survey studies are widely used in peer production research.

      Observational/ethnographic have also been used to study participants. Results also reflected that motives were varied but also seem to indicate that participants self-selected their projects, collaborators, and specific production roles.

    9. Frequently cited motivations in foundational work by theseauthors, von Hippel and von Krogh (2003), von Krogh (2003), and others in-cluded: the use value of the software to the contributing developer; the hedo-nic pleasure of building software; the increased human capital, reputation,or employment prospects; and social status within a community of peers.Other early accounts analyzing examples of peer production beyond FLOSSsuggested additional motivations. For example, Kollock (1999) emphasizedreciprocity, reputation, a sense of efficacy, and collective identity as salientsocial psychological drivers of contribution to online communities and fo-rums.

      Per Benkler, social psychology constructs (individual behavior, feelings, and thoughts within a social context) offer better descriptions for understanding peer production motivations than economic theory.

      Cited studies in this passage are from:

      CSCW (Beenen, HICSS (Forte and Bruckman), ACM (Nov) GROUP (Panciera) Psychology (Rafarli and Ariel) Social Psychology (Cheshire) CMC (Cheshire and Antin) Law (Benkler) Open Source (Coleman and Hill) MIS (von Krogh et al)

    10. A second quality of peer production that challenged conventional economictheories of motivation and cooperation was the absence of clear extrinsic in-centives like monetary rewards. Traditional economic explanations of behav-ior rely on the assumption of a fundamentally self-interested actor mobilizedthrough financial or other incentives. In seeking to explain how peer produc-tion projects attract highly skilled contributors without money, much of theliterature on peer production has focused on questions of participant moti-vation.

      Peer production contrasts with other forms of labor in its varied non-monetary/economic incentives. Early research on participant motives was grounded in longstanding economic theory/frameworks about self-interested actors.

      The economic approach makes sense, however. Without prior work in peer production, attempting to apply/extend other labor frameworks would be an appropriate evaluation technique.

    11. A newer wave of work has stepped back from this approachand sought to explain how multiple motivational “vectors” figure in the cre-ation of common pool resources online – an approach that underscores a coreadvantage of peer production in its capacity to enable action without requir-ing translation into a system of formalized, extrinsic, carrots and sticks.

      Recent studies of motivation to participate in peer production consider a broader range of decentralized incentives.

      See Kraut et al (2012): http://wendynorris.com/kraut-et-al-2012-building-successful-online-communities-evidence-based-social-design/

  8. Jul 2018
    1. I saw Eliot Higgins present in Paris in early January, and he listed four ‘Ps’ which helped explain the different motivations. I’ve been thinking about these a great deal and using Eliot’s original list have identified four additional motivations for the creation of this type of content: Poor Journalism, Parody, to Provoke or ‘Punk’, Passion, Partisanship, Profit, Political Influence or Power, and Propaganda.This is a work in progress but once you start breaking these categories down and mapping them against one another you begin to see distinct patterns in terms of the types of content created for specific purposes.
    2. To understand the current information ecosystem, we need to break down three elements:The different types of content that are being created and sharedThe motivations of those who create this contentThe ways this content is being disseminated
  9. Jun 2018
    1. In hindsight, I read these acts as cries for help, a kind of academic self-medication. I was bored, not because I’d mastered the required material – I got more than my share of non-A grades – but because the things I was asked to do were generally uninspiring. Perhaps nothing was more uninspiring than preparing for an AP exam.
  10. May 2018
  11. Apr 2018
    1. the right to exclude is not a necessary incentive – it is but one way to secure money in exchange for the fruits of one’s labor

      Agreed. Then again, pointing this out does little for the creative professionals for whom we expressed great concern at the opening of this piece.

  12. Sep 2017
    1. An overwhelming number of companies (64%) indicated that their number one reason for implementing social tools is to support a culture of learning. The next two main motivations are to encourage collaboration and innovation (54%) and connect employees to organization experts (42%).

      Main motivation for adoption of workplace social learning tools.

  13. Jun 2017
  14. Mar 2017
    1. I joined #clmooc for fun. 

      Emotion Motivation

    2. Rather than slowing down my learning, my learning accelerated.  Rather than having less time to do things, I was finding I had more time to do things. 

      Motivation Energy Time

    1. cribe and influence human motives

      Language as action, not just description; rhetoric is not only reflective, but also integral to formation and motivation. Interesting to think about when considering Burke's historical context i.e. the early 20th century was marred by intensely violent acts such as wars, revolution, and genocide. Perhaps the physical omnipresence of violence contributed to a conceptualization of words as a kind of violence.

  15. Dec 2016
    1. We noticed that this increment in productivity was a consequence of the student s’ involvement in the planning, estimation and controlactivities in each sprint. This practice reinforced the commitment and the responsibility of each student and favored the leaders’ development, which also contributed to motivate the team.

      This is gold to keep your employees. We moved away from giving foosball and pool tables, remote work or shares. Millennials are transcending the vertical hierarchy. The Age of Information requires respect of the intellectual self.

  16. Oct 2016
    1. A teacher’s presence in learning activities and as part of community in online learn-ing environments is motivational (McIntyre 2011).
    2. This is supported by Schwier’s (2007) views that ‘communities cannot be created; rather they emerge when conditions nurture them’ (p.18). These social interactions among students maximize students’ motivation and peer collabo-ration in learning (University of Texas 2013)
    3. The design and the way courses are structured can be vital factors that are associated with students’ motiva-tion and positive/negative experiences of learning online.

      course

    4. the elements—tools and community—seemed to mediate stu-dents’ active participation and motivation in the process of achieving their (subject) learning objectives (object). Tool mediation, which is a key principle of Activity Theory, highlights that human activity is mediated by various tools
    5. Either way, student motivation and engagement are closely related elements of student learning that can have an impact on learning outcomes. Beer etal. (2010)state that in spite of the fact that there is no universally accept-ed definition of what comprises engagement, student and college success, student retention and student motivation are always linked to engagement.
    6. Identifying Factors Influencing Students’ Motivation and Engagement in Online Courses
  17. Sep 2016
  18. Jul 2016
    1. In addition, the discontinuity between classroom theory and practical learning had implications for both the quality of learning and the learners' levels of motivation.
  19. Jun 2016
    1. A recent organization of the experimental literature (Deci 8z Ryan, in press) revealed that events which are experienced as supporting autonomy and promoting or signifying competence-thus facilitating an internal perceived locus of causality and perceived competence-tend to increase intrinsic motivation as reflected, for example, by behavior that persists with a minimum of external support. We refer to these initiating or regulatory events as informational. Events that are experienced as pressure toward particular outcomes-thus co-opting choice and facilitating an external perceived locus of causality-tend to undermine intrinsic mo- tivation, restrict creativity (Amabile, 1983), and impair cognitive flexibility (McGraw & McCullers, 1979). We refer to these events as controlling. Finally, events which are experienced as conveying that the person cannot master an activity-thus promoting perceived incompetence-undermine intrinsic motivation and tend to leave one feeling helpless (e.g., Boggiano & Barrett, 1984). We refer to these events as amotivating.

      Wow. A pretty straightforward summary! I wonder what the "at press" article is?

      Autonomy focusses internal motivation; controlling events reduces it.

    2. The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality

      Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. “The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality.” Journal of Research in Personality 19 (2): 109–34. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.

    1. The significance of autonomy versus control for the maintenance of intrin-sic motivation has been clearly observed in studies of classroom learning.For example, several studies have shown that autonomy-supportive (in con-trast to controlling) teachers catalyze in their students greater intrinsic moti-vation, curiosity, and the desire for challenge (e.g., Deci, Nezlek, & Shein-man, 1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Students who are overly controlled notonly lose initiative but also learn less well, especially when learning is com-plex or requires conceptual, creative processing (Benware & Deci, 1984;Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Similarly, studies show children of parents whoare more autonomy supportive to be more mastery oriented—more likely tospontaneously explore and extend themselves—than children of parents whoare more controlling (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997)

      Autonomy is crucial

    2. In fact, the majority of the research on the effects of environmental eventson intrinsic motivation has focused on the issue of autonomy versus controlrather than that of competence. And this issue has been considerably morecontroversial. The research began with the demonstration that extrinsic re-wards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Lepper, Greene, &Nisbett, 1973), which we interpret in terms of the reward shifting peoplefrom a more internal to external perceived locus of causality. Although theissue of rewards has been hotly debated, a recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koes-tner, & Ryan, in press) confirms that virtually every type of expected tangiblereward made contingent on task performance does, in fact, undermine intrin-sic motivation. Furthermore, not only tangible rewards, but also threats(Deci & Cascio, 1972), deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), direc-tives (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), and competition pressure(Reeve & Deci, 1996) diminish intrinsic motivation because, according toCET, people experience them as controllers of their behavior. On the otherhand, choice and the opportunity for self-direction (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac,Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) appear to enhance intrinsic motivation, as theyafford a greater sense of autonomy

      Pretty much every form of surveillance and control that is found in the traditional classroom can be shown to undermine intrinsic motivation:

      • intrinisic rewards
      • threats
      • deadline,
      • directives,
      • competition pressure
    3. ntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions andNew Directions

      Ryan, R M, and E L Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1): 54–67.

    1. ngiblerewards significantly undermined intrinsic motivation, particularly for interestingtasks (–0.68) compared with uninteresting tasks (0.18). I

      Tangible rewards lower motivation

    1. 78.9% of the pupils who actually received grades would have preferred written comments, and 86.3% of those who received comments were satisfied with this mode of evaluation

      most students who receive grades only wish they had comments; most student who received comments only were satisfied.

      [[Should check this with my students.

    2. in the grades group, 26.7% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores, and 34.4% attributed it to the importance of success, whereas among those who received no feedback only 7.2% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores and 40% attributed it to the "positive" aspect of need achievement, the desire to succeed.

      Grades group:

      • 26.7% attributed effort to avoid failure
      • 34.4% to desire for success

      In non-grades group:

      • 7.2% to avoid failure
      • 40% to need for achievement, desire to succeed.
    3. We expected that receipt of indiviaualized, specific, non-normative information about task performance, includ- ing both positive and negative comments, would maintain or even enhance subsequent motivation.

      Hypothesis: that individualized, non-normative information about performance would maintain or enhance motivation.

    4. One aspect that merits further study is the search for information about one's com- petence and success in a task (Festinger, 1954; Suls & Miller, 1977). Such information seems vital to a sense of mastery and self-determination because without it one can- not assess one's mastery in any given task. Thus one would expect the availability (and/or expectation) of feedback to be an important factor in task motivation in general and in determining interest, or intrinsic motivation, in particular. Specifically, one would expect intrinsic motivation to be greater for tasks perceived as supplying information about competence and to be undermined when no such informa- tion is expecte

      Article is about the search for information about "one's competence and success in a task", with the assumption that interest and intrinsic motivation would be greater for tasks that are perceived as supplying information about competence and undermined when this is missing.

    1. InastudybySwann&Arthurs(1998),alargenumberoftheirstudentsseemedtotakeaninstrumentalviewoflearning,conceivingassessmenttasksasobstaclestoovercomeinthepursuitofgrades.Formativefeedbackwasviewedasameanstonegotiatetheseobstacles.InanearlierstudybyBeckeretal.(1968)ofAmericancollegelife,assessmentdemandswereubiquitous,andstudentbehaviourreectedtheinstrumentalandpragmaticstrategiestheyadoptedtocopewiththeparticularteachingandassessmentpracticesimposedonthem.Butisthistruefortoday’sstudentinthecontextoftheUK?Amajorityofthestudentsinourstudyperceivehighereducationasa‘service’,andfeltthatfeedbackconstitutespartofthatservice.Asonestudentnoted:TheywayIseeitiswe’repaying£1,000.It’smoreofaservicenow.Ifhighereducationisviewedasaservice,thenstudentsarearguablytheconsumersofthatservice.Butwhatdotheyexpecttheservicetoconsistof?Moststudentsinourstudylinkfeedbacktoattainingbettergrades.Thesestudentsperceivefeedbackcommentsasidentify-ingwhattheyaredoingrightandwrongand,therefore,helpingthemtoimprovetheirperformanceinsubsequentassessedassignmentsandexaminationsinordertoraisetheirmarks:Partofwritingtheessayquestionintheexamishavingtherighttechnique,andwhilstitwouldbeusefultosaythat‘yeah,you’rebringingingoodpartsoutsidethesubjectandit’sgoodthatyou’vebroughtinthis’,itwouldalsobegoodtoknow‘well,don’teverusethislanguageintheexam’causeit’sgoingtocountagainstyou’

      Students' consumerist, instrumental view of learning.

    1. n addition, we examined whether there were differences in reactions to grades for papers versus exams. The two-way interactions between goals and type of feedback and the three-way interactions among goals, types of feedback, and grades were tested. Neither the main effects nor the interaction terms were significant, and including these terms did not alter the results for goals and goal interaction term

      Motivation issues do not vary whether you are talking about exams or papers.

    2. . Even in the context of high grades, a per formance-avoidance goal is related to decreased motivation, highlighting just how aversive evaluative situations are with this goal orientation. Pe

      High grades can still be associated with decreased motivation

    3. ulnerability to helpless behavior in the context of failure on experimental tasks. In contrast, and also consistent with Dweck's prior work (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; El liott & Dweck), mastery goals were associated with enhanced motivation during the critical phase of processing evaluative information on an important task, and this effect was not moderated by the level of the gra

      Mastery goals were associated with enhanced motivation, even in the context of a low grade.

      So if the focus is mastery, a low grade is motivating.

    4. rades. Students self-reported their grades. Grades for the English and history classes were the grades students received on the first major paper of the semester. Grades for the other courses were the grades students received on the first major exam of the semester. Grades were converted into a 13-point scale with F = 1 and A+ =13. We also assessed students' perceptions of their grades to address the pos sibility that it is the students' perceptions of their grades as successful, or not, that are more important than their actual grades. After reporting their exam or paper grades on the survey, students were asked, "In your opinion, how well did you do on the exam or paper?" The format for this item was 1 (not at all well) through 7 (very well). Students' perceptions of how well they did were highly correlated with their reported exam or paper grades (r = .77, p < .001), indicating that stu dents who received higher grades tended to feel they did w

      Asked students a) what their last grade was and b) independently, how did they think they did.

    5. Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed (a

      Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed.

    6. uccess and failure are attrib uted to effort (Ames, 1992). Even in the face of failure or obstacles, a mastery goal is associated with persistence (Ames, 1984; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1995; Stipek & Kowalski, 1989). When oriented toward a mas tery goal, success (in the case of high grades) bolsters motivation, whereas a lack of progress (in the case of low grades) signals more effort is needed and thus does not diminish motivation. Therefore, we expected a mastery goal to be associated with increases in self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and a decrease in preference to avoid challenge regardless of high or low grades.

      If grades are succeeding (i.e. developing a mastery goal, then high grades will bolster motivation by indicating success and low grades will not diminish motivation as they will be understood as simply signalling that more work is needed.

    7. n recent years, some research has indicated that performance-ap proach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation nega tively (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). In particular, when the approach versus avoidance nature of performance goals is considered, performance-avoidance goals are maladaptive, whereas performance-approach goals are often positively associated with achievement and show a positive or neutral relation to motivation

      Performance approach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation negatively, as opposed to performance-avoidance goals.

    8. iener and Dweck (1978) demonstrated that performance-oriented students exhibited a learned helpless pattern after ex periencing failure.

      Performance-oriented students exhibited a learned helplessness when experiencing failure.

    9. In the present research, we examined how students' goals relate to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value in response to grades in the classroom

      This paper looks at how students' goals relate to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, etc, in response to grades.

    1. Manual for thePatterns of Patterns of Adaptive Adaptive Learning ScalesLearning Scales

      Midgley, Carol, Martin L Maehr, Ludmila Z Hruda, Eric Anderman, Lynley Anderman, Kimberley E Freeman, and T Urdan. 2000. “Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales.” Ann Arbor 1001: 48109–41259.

      This is a survey for working out students' motivation, performance avoidance, and so on.

  20. serval.unil.ch serval.unil.ch
    1. achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Butler,1987; Nicholls, 1984) has consistently argued that grades engendera performance focus, as performance achievement goals are ge-nerically considered as normative in content (Elliot & Murayama

      achievement goal theory argues that grades engender performance focus.

    2. Why Grades Engender Performance-Avoidance Goals:The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation

      Pulfrey, Caroline, Celine Buchs, and Fabrizio Butera. 2011. “Why Grades Engender Performance-Avoidance Goals: The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation.” J. Educ. Psychol. 103 (3): 683–700.

  21. Apr 2016
  22. Jan 2016
    1. “If you set your goals ridiculously high and it’s a failure, you will fail above everyone else’s success.”

      Quote from James Cameron

  23. Nov 2015
    1. Findings indicate that adults get more out of positive activities than adolescents and college-aged students. That said, the college-age sample may be misleading, says Layous, because many undergrads are required to participate in studies for course credit, not by their own volition. In other words, a disproportionate number of students in these studies may lack the all-important motivation that their older counterparts have.
    2. In one study, Lyubomirsky posted online two nearly identical requests for study participants. The only difference? One version told participants the study was meant to increase their happiness, while the other simply told them they’d take part in a cognitive exercise. After performing the same happiness-inducing activities, the people who signed up for the happiness study—the group Lyubomirsky saw as more “motivated” to become happier—gained more from the study than those who signed up for the other exercise.

      The study. This sounds very similar to the placebo effect, so I wonder if they have checked to see what effects they would find if they picked activities previously classified as neutral.

  24. Oct 2015
    1. Sirois suggests that interventions that focus on increasing self-compassion may be particularly beneficial for reducing the stress associated with procrastination because self-compassion allows a person to recognize the downsides of procrastination without entangling themselves in negative emotions, negative ruminations, and a negative relationship to themselves. People maintain an inner sense of well-being that allows them to risk failure and take action. 
    2. Often because we fear failing at the task and dread all the negative self-evaluations that might result from that failure.

      This popular explanation, and more importantly, Wikipedia, seem to suggest otherwise - though a nod is given to this hypothesis in the wiki article.

  25. Sep 2015
    1. Gang Lu looks around the room with expressionless eyes. He’s sick of physics and sick of the buffoons who practice it. The tall glacial German, Chris, who tells him what to do; the crass idiot Bob, who talks to him as if he is a dog; the student Shan, whose ideas about plasma physics are treated with reverence and praised at every meeting. The woman who puts her feet on the desk and dismisses him with her eyes.

      This is basically the explanation we get for his motivation.

  26. Jul 2015
    1. While I’d struggle to tell you how I learn best, there is one question that I’d always be able to answer enthusiastically: What would you like to learn next? Right now I’m learning JavaScript and have plans to give Spanish another go. I should probably pick up those guitar lessons again soon as well. Thankfully we live in a time when it’s trivially easy to gain access to resources and to learning activities. The problem is finding out the ones that work best for you. Perhaps that’s why we carry around in our pockets devices that can access pretty much the sum total of human knowledge yet use them to LOL at amusing pictures of cats. What are the barriers here? I’d suggest there are three main ones: 1 Curriculum - the series of activities that build towards a learning goal 2 Credentials - the ability to show what you know 3 Community - the cohort of peers you feel you are part of, along with access to ‘experts’

      How do I learn best? What resources are the best ones for me?

  27. Feb 2014
    1. By contrast, any positive or negative effects that intellectual property rights have on the wider populace are diffused, and any individual member of the wider populace has little motive (and potentially insufficient means) to overco me the significant barriers to active political lobbying. As a result, the intrinsic trend is for intellectual INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 11   property holders to actively lobby, largely unopposed, for greater rights protections. (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. C.)

      Both positive and negative effects stemming from intellectual property rights to the wider populace are diffused, thus the wider populace has little motive to oppose changes to laws and policies that support intellectual property.

    1. In addition to making it easier to review an original case, annotating cases during the first review of a case makes the briefing process easier. With adequate annotations, the important details needed for your brief will be much easier to retrieve. Without annotations, you will likely have difficulty locating the information you seek even in the short cases. It might seem strange that it would be hard to reference a short case, but even a short case will likely take you at least fifteen to twenty-five minutes to read, while longer cases may take as much as thirty minutes to an hour to complete. No matter how long it takes, the dense material of all cases makes it difficult to remember all your thoughts, and trying to locate specific sections of the analysis may feel like you are trying to locate a needle in a haystack. An annotation in the margin, however, will not only swiftly guide you to a pertinent section, but will also refresh the thoughts that you had while reading that section.

      Why annotate a legal brief?

  28. Jan 2014
    1. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.

    1. This suggests that peer production will thrive where projects have three characteristi cs

      If thriving is a metric (is it measurable? too subjective?) of success then the 3 characteristics it must have are:

      • modularity: divisible into components
      • granularity: fine-grained modularity
      • integrability: low-cost integration of contributions

      I don't dispute that these characteristics are needed, but they are too general to be helpful, so I propose that we look at these three characteristics through the lens of the type of contributor we are seeking to motivate.

      How do these characteristics inform what we should focus on to remove barriers to collaboration for each of these contributor-types?

      Below I've made up a rough list of lenses. Maybe you have links or references that have already made these classifications better than I have... if so, share them!

      Roughly here are the classifications of the types of relationships to open source projects that I commonly see:

      • core developers: either hired by a company, foundation, or some entity to work on the project. These people care most about integrability.

      • ecosystem contributors: someone either self-motivated or who receives a reward via some mechanism outside the institution that funds the core developers (e.g. reputation, portfolio for future job prospects, tools and platforms that support a consulting business, etc). These people care most about modularity.

      • feature-driven contributors: The project is useful out-of-the-box for these people and rather than build their own tool from scratch they see that it is possible for the tool to work they way they want by merely contributing code or at least a feature-request based on their idea. These people care most about granularity.

      The above lenses fit the characteristics outlined in the article, but below are other contributor-types that don't directly care about these characteristics.

      • the funder: a company, foundation, crowd, or some other funding body that directly funds the core developers to work on the project for hire.

      • consumer contributors: This class of people might not even be aware that they are contributors, but simply using the project returns direct benefits through logs and other instrumented uses of the tool to generate data that can be used to improve the project.

      • knowledge-driven contributors: These contributors are most likely closest to the ecosystem contributors, maybe even a sub-species of those, that contribute to documentation and learning the system; they may be less-skilled at coding, but still serve a valuable part of the community even if they are not committing to the core code base.

      • failure-driven contributors: A primary source of bug reports and may also be any one of the other lenses.

      What other lenses might be useful to look through? What characteristics are we missing? How can we reduce barriers to contribution for each of these contributor types?

      I feel that there are plenty of motivations... but what barriers exist and what motivations are sufficient for enough people to be willing to surmount those barriers? I think it may be easier to focus on the barriers to make contributing less painful for the already-convinced, than to think about the motivators for those needing to be convinced-- I think the consumer contributors are some of the very best suited to convince the unconvinced; our job should be to remove the barriers for people at each stage of community we are trying to build.

      A note to the awesome folks at Hypothes.is who are reading our consumer contributions... given the current state of the hypothes.is project, what class of contributors are you most in need of?

    2. the proposition that diverse motivations animate human beings, and, more importantly, that there exist ranges of human experience in which the presence of monetary rewards is inversely related to the presence of other, social-psychological rewards.

      The first analytic move.

    3. common appropriation regimes do not give a complete answer to the sustainability of motivation and organization for the truly open, large-scale nonproprietary peer production projects we see on the Internet.

      Towards the end of our last conversation the text following "common appropriation" seemed an interesting place to dive into further for our future discussions.

      I have tagged this annotation with "meta" because it is a comment about our discussion and where to continue it rather than an annotation focused on the content itself.

      In the future I would be interested in exploring the idea of "annotation types" that can be selectively turned on and off, but for now will handle that with ad hoc tags like "meta".

    4. understanding that when a project of any size is broken up into little pieces, each of which can be performed by an individual in a short amount of time, the motivation to get any given individual to contribute need only be very small.

      The second analytic move.

  29. Sep 2013
    1. For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the things that make for or against it; whatever creates or increases happiness or some part of happiness, we ought to do; whatever destroys or hampers happiness, or gives rise to its opposite, we ought not to do.