The argument that “external motivation kills internal motivation” sounds too simple, and contradicts some evidence. For example, small children are happy to show their work to their parents—but isn’t parent’s approval a kind of external motivation? Or consider the opposite, when you make something that you are proud of, but everyone ignores you—according to that hypothesis, such lack of external motivation should make you feel super motivated internally. Maybe it actually works that way for some people, but it would make me feel depressed.
The argument about tracking only making kids faster by a year or two also sounds suspicious. Or rather, it sounds credible if we speak about smart 10 years old kids—let them proceed at their own speed, and most of them will skip a grade or two. Now do the same with smart 15 years old kids, and some of them will achieve results that their average peers will never achieve… so instead of a year or two, is it infinitely many years?
(This reminds me of the problem with the traditional method of calculating IQ as “mental age divided by physical age”, where the formula breaks down at the moment you exceed average person’s ability at any age. An example would be a 15 years old gifted child learning calculus.)
The argument that “external motivation kills internal motivation” sounds too simple, and contradicts some evidence. For example, small children are happy to show their work to their parents—but isn’t parent’s approval a kind of external motivation? Or consider the opposite, when you make something that you are proud of, but everyone ignores you—according to that hypothesis, such lack of external motivation should make you feel super motivated internally. Maybe it actually works that way for some people, but it would make me feel depressed.
The argument about tracking only making kids faster by a year or two also sounds suspicious. Or rather, it sounds credible if we speak about smart 10 years old kids—let them proceed at their own speed, and most of them will skip a grade or two. Now do the same with smart 15 years old kids, and some of them will achieve results that their average peers will never achieve… so instead of a year or two, is it infinitely many years?
(This reminds me of the problem with the traditional method of calculating IQ as “mental age divided by physical age”, where the formula breaks down at the moment you exceed average person’s ability at any age. An example would be a 15 years old gifted child learning calculus.)