Motivating Underachievers

My education philosophy centers on a number of components and strategies:

(1) People learn by doing;
(2) Knowledge is ratio;
(3) Reduce to essential fundamentals, then repeat, repeat, repeat.

In my view, students learn by doing. The second point is, inasmuch as comparison requires contrast, knowledge is a function of ratiocination. Let me explain.

I believe that the best way to Motivate Underachievement is Through Doubt. Many children who are under-achievers have made up their minds with absolute certainty that the world is a certain way, people are a certain way, and “I simply can’t learn it…I’m not good at math, languages, piano, etc.”

A number of teachers recently shared their thoughts (and questions) on motivating excellence versus bare minimum completions. One woman, in particular, said she has a boy in her class who always turns his assign-ments in on time and that his work always meets a passing level, but she feels he's capable of so much more. Her note made me think of Phil Jackson, coach of the Champion LA Lakers basketball team. Over the years, in various interviews, he has said that for top performers just winning is often not enough to motivate. Her note also caused me to reflect on the years when my parents had me take music lessons, and all the hours of practice, which I hated. Learning my instrument seemed so mechanical. It never seemed to click. Hence, I never reached the next level. How are Phil Jackson's ideas and my music lessons as a child related? Perhaps it has to do with "aspiring to a vision of what's possible." Great players and teams don't just win...they set new levels of what's possible, like artists that break new ground. Music never became second nature enough to me to move beyond trying to learn its basic mechanics. In retrospect, I suspect the ways I was taught did not truly help to convey a vision that I understood. I never reached a Eureka moment of "Hey, I can do this!" I never grasped the fact that my stringed instrument as an essentially simple instrument. I never really learned its fundamentals as a tool containing many possibilities. I was simply tauhgt scales by rote and told that "you'll be glad one day when you can entertain friends at parties, or that music is a gateway to learning other subjects." Growing up in Maoist China had a lot to do with teaching methods at the time--during the Cultural Revolution. It was very military and strict. Perhaps a sense of music appreciation was missing. I never saw how my practice tied into the developing evolution of music as a whole, especially to popular music. School work, on the other hand, was another story. I was fortunate enough to have had an Uncle (and various tutors) who taught me how to be critical of my assignments and to approach things critically. He taught me to imagine reviewing my work through my teacher's eyes. There were questions to ask and things to watch for before I could claim my work was "finished." It was like I had been given Quality Assurance tools for homework. "The key," my Uncle would say, "is to understand the background and context...to see the bigger picture of what you're studying so that the specifics make sense." Hence, I always made it a point to learn this first, before starting a new chapter. It helped me see where things were going and to gain a sense of what was possible. I sometimes even aspired to turn in the best work my teacher had ever seen, all because my uncle was able to pry open my eyes to visualize more.

Recently I attended a parent/teacher discussion group. They were sharing thoughts about teaching respect for rules and authority. It's a fine line between respecting and challenging authority. We are not trying to raise sheep. It became apparent in our exchange that my views of obedience, respect and consideration are somewhat unconventional. Too often, when kids ask, "Why must I obey?," adults respond by saying, "Because it's the law...the rule says so...obey or be punished." All kids can see the need for rules, i.e. traffic signals and stop signs. But not all rules are so apparent. When a kid is defiant, my first response is to dig deeper to learn what's causing the defiance. A while back I tutored a kid who asked, "Why should I obey bad rules?" I replied by asking, "What if everyone were to pick and choose the rules they wanted to obey?" We both agreed, things would be a mess. We discussed obeying versus challenging rules. We concluded finally that rules should merit obedience and that any rule can be changed. I realized (yes, my students are often my teachers) that sometimes the best way to fix a bad rule is not by disobeying it, but rather to offer a better solution. I sometimes think that adults are offended when kids question authority. But I see this as Quality Assurance, actually. Authority is broad, there's legal authority, academic authority, engineering rules, accounting guidelines, business regulations...to name a few. Kids need to learn rules and their background. Indeed, Math, Science, and Language all involve rules.But simply because an established rule exists doesn't make it right. Not all rules deserve obedience. In sum, motivating kids to question rules (and the reasons behind them) and to fix bad rules is one way to encourage obedience.

Recently a teacher emailed asking for my thoughts on motivating underachievers. She noted that many of these kids are extremely bright, but don't believe in a larger purpose, and so opt to skate by with minimal effort. My husband has coached youth sports. Motivating the determined pessimist is just as hard as persuading the blind-faith optimist that their belief might not be 100% true. Both share a steadfast certainty in their respective beliefs. The true believer sees doubt as a defect in faith, while the pessimist doubts everything to the point where s/he's sure that all effort is point-less. Doubt, to me, is a healthy motivator. To the pessimist that asks, "Why try, when in the end all is dust to dust?," I ask, "How are you absolutely sure, beyond the slightest doubt? Is there a remote chance that your efforts could make a difference and defy eternal odds?" The usual reply is, "I suppose until it's all over there's always at least a slim chance." Many people quit before getting in the game because they see the whole pageant as pointless. "What difference does my little life make in the grand scheme?" they ask. "I'll never compare to Mozart, let alone Michael Jordan. Besides, odds are that one-day all life will become extinct; all monuments will vanish to sand. So, all effort is futile." Again I ask, "Is this certain? Any more certain than the belief that all we do has significance in some record book of ages?" While we don't wish to detract from faith-based approaches, it often turns out that more critical, doubt-oriented methods are more effective at motivating the underachiever.

--Oct. 2008