- Jun 2016
-
Local file Local file
-
Most studies of extrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivation, including those men- tioned earlier, used as controls subjects who received no rewards or feedback, apparently on the assumption that un- der these conditions original levels of intrinsic motivation would be maintained.
make an interesting point that most studies assume that no-feedback is a status quo.
-
The role of the availability of such information was studied in comparison with conditions of nonreceipt of any information and of receipt of normative evaluation.
Compared it to grades only and no-feedback.
-
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.
-
The present research was thus designed to study the ef- fects of different feedback conditions on intrinsic motiva- tion.
goal of study
-
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.
-
-
dpod.kakelbont.ca dpod.kakelbont.ca
-
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.
-
80%disagreedwiththestatement‘Feedbackcommentsarenotthatuseful’
80% of students disagreed with the statement that feedback was not useful.
-
ormativefeedbackcommentscanonlybeeffectiveifstudentsreadandmakeuseofthem.MostofthestudentsinvolvedinstudiesbyHyland(2000)andDing(1998)seemedtoreadtutors’comments.Ourquestionnairedatareectthis(seeTableI).Thetimespentreadingcommentsvaries,withthemajorityofstudentsclaimingtospendlessthan15minutesdoingso(although,ofcourse,ourdatadonottelluswhenthistakesplaceorwhetherstudentsreturntolookattheirfeedbackonmorethanoneoccasion).But,overall,97%ofstudentsindicatedthattheyusually‘read’thewrittenfeedbacktheyreceive.Furthermore,wecanseefromTableIIthat82%ofthestudentsclaimedto‘paycloseattention’tofeedback.Theinterviewdataalsosupportthis:Ialwayslookforwardtoseeingwhattheyhadtosay.NormallyIgetthegradeandthenlookthroughtheself-assessmentandthetutor’sassessment,readthecommentsand...seewhatcommentshe’smadeontheessay.ThisndingisreinforcedbyHyland’s(2000)study.Henotedthatthemajorityofthestudentsinvolved(fromarangeofinstitutions)seemedtotry(evenifonlyoccasionally)tousecommentsforfutureassignments
Most students read feedback and try to make something of it.
-
Afurtherbarriertotheuseofformativefeedbackmaybethatsomestudentsincreasinglyfailtounderstandthetaken-for-grantedacademicdiscourseswhichunderpinassessmentcriteriaandthelanguageoffeedback(Hounsell,1987).AccordingtoEntwistle(1984,p.1),‘effectivecommunicationdependsonsharedassumptions,denitions,andunderstanding’.ButastudyatLancasterUniversityfoundthat50%ofthethird-yearstudentsinoneacademicdepartmentwereunclearwhattheassessmentcriteriawere(Baldwin,1993,citedinBrown&Knight,1994).Asoneofourstudentsnoted:‘Ihaven’tgotacluewhatI’massessedon’
The extent to which students do not understand what they are being assessed on, even in higher years.
-
hesecommentssuggestthatstudentsinourstudyperceivefeedbacknegativelyifitdoesnotprovideenoughinformationtobehelpful,ifitistooimpersonal,andifitistoogeneralandvaguetobeofanyformativeuse
What makes feedback less effective
-
Black&Wiliam’s(2000)developingtheoreticalframeworkofformativeassessmentempha-sisestheinteractionsbetweenteachers,pupilsandsubjectswithin‘communitiesofpractice’
Black and Williams (2000) develop a theory of formative learning within a community of practice.
-
The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering therole of assessment feedback in student learning
Higgins, Richard, Peter Hartley, and Alan Skelton. 2002. “The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the Role of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (1): 53–64. doi:10.1080/03075070120099368.
-
-
books.google.ca books.google.ca
-
"Research suggests that avoidance of challenge may be related to motives and goals in somewhat complex ways. Elliott and Dweck (1988), in an experimental study, found that when children were oriented toward mastery goals they were more likely to choose tasks described as challenging and offering opportunities to learn, regardless of their level of perceived ability. But when students were oriented toward performance goals, they chose challenging tasks that served to enhance others' high opinions of their abilities only if they perceived their ability to be high. Children who perceived their ability to be low and were oriented toward performance goals, in contrast, tended to choose tasks described as easy but that would avoid unfavourable judgments of their ability. Some students may feel they are in a double-bind, preferring easy work that does not threaten their self-worth, yet taking on difficult tasks in order to demonstrate their competence or superiority... Elliot and Church (1997) found that performance-approach goals were positively associated with measures of both challenge-avoidance (fear of failure) and challence-seeking motives (achievement motivation). Avoidance of challenge, then appears, to be positively associated with performance-avoidance goals and negatively related with matery goals, but may have a more complex relationship with performance-approach goals."
In other words, the goal has to be to focus teaching and evaluation on the inculcation of mastery goals and the avoidance of situations in which students are encouraged to engage in performance-avoidance. Once they start engaging in performance avoidance, they then stop seeing challenge.
-
Why my badges may be a bad idea:
"These results suggest that teachers may discourage avoidance behaviour among their students when they encourage students to focus on mastering the material, improvement, and understanding the relevance of classroom work in their lives. Although it makes sense that students should be less concerned with protecting their image in classrooms that emphasize understanding the material and personal, individual standards of achievement, our results suggest that de-emphasizing performance goals may be more important than increasing the emphasis on mastery goals.... Even in classrooms that contain some of the curricular elements of a mastery goal structure, such as the constructivist principle of assigning open-ended, inquiry-based projects and tasks, students may avoid novelty and challenge if they believe that, ultimately, what matters is how their performance compares to their peers."
-
Makes an interesting suggestion about avoiding social comparison: give students individualised work, not by dividing them into groups, but by giving students the work they can do as fast as others in the room (i.e. hard worl to slow down the good students and easier work to speed up the slower ones.
-
Collectively, the results of our studies suggest that avoidance behavior is more common in schools and classrooms that emphasize performance goals, primarily by making ability differences between students and competition salient features of the learning environment. These results are intuitive. When students find themselves in learning environments that promote social comparison and make ability differences between students salient, it makes sense that they will be concerned with looking able compared to others. For those students who fear or expect that they may not compare favorably with their classmates, the adoption of strategies to avoid such negative social comparisons is to be expected."
-
"...when students self-handicap, cheat, fail to seek help when they need it, and avoid the types of challenging and novel academic tasks that produce real learning, they are undermining their own learning and development. Over time, such behavior can produce a self-perpetuating cycle of academic failure and increased avoidance (Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee 1998)."
-
Gheen and Midgely 1999 examined "how teachers' reports of social comparison practices related to avoiding novelty and chellenge. They found that teachers' reports of informative social comparison practices related to slightly higher levels of avoidance. However, these practices weakened the association between self-efficacy and avoiding novelty and challenge. In classrooms where teachers were high in their use of interstudent discussion about how to improve one's own work, low- and high-efficacy students were on a more equal footing when it came to avoiding novelty challenge. However, in classrooms where teachers reported using high levels of relative ability social comparison practices, low self-efficacy students' avoidance was higher than that of high self-efficacy students'"
-
- Gheen and Midgley 1999 looked at classroom practices of sharing information about student work:
- Where work was shared to "see who got the right answer" (relative ability purposes) and
- to "get hints for when you have difficulty" (acquiring information purposes"
No surprise:
"They found that students' perceptions of the goal structure related to avoidance of novelty and challenge. When students perceived that their classrooms emphasized mastery goals, they reported lower levels of avoidance, but when they perceived their classrooms emphasized performance goals, they were more lilely to say that thei preferred to avoid novel and challenging work."
-
"Students' perceptions of a mastery classroom goal structure were associated with a lower level of help avoidance whereas their perceptions of a performance classroom goal structure were associated with a higher level of help avoidance. In classrooms where students perceived that the focus was on understanding, mastery, and the intrinsic value of learning, compared to classrooms where the focus was on competition and proving one's ability, students were less likely to avoid seeking help with their work when they needed it."
-
"In the learning environments of classrooms and schools, students are exposed to and perceive various messages about the purposes of achievment. For example, students can perceive that in their classroom or school, there is an emphasis on learning, understanding, and improvment (a mastery goal structure). Similarly, they can perceive messages that suggest that getting the highest grades on the test and outperforming their classmates are valued most in the classroom or school (a performance goal structure). Sometimes, these perceptions are influenced by teacher practices that emphasize a mastery or performance goal structure, such as when teachers post only the work of the highest achieving students in the class (performance-goal-oriented instructional practices)."
-
Extrinsic goals (i.e. trying to get a reward or avoid punishment) are most strongly related to mal-adjustive student behaviour in the poorest performing students. I.e. marks make the poorest students doubt themselves more, be less-likely to seek help, and more likely to cheat.
-
Personal mastery goals are negatively related to
- self-handicapping (Midgley and Urban 2001)
- help-seeking behaviour (Ryan and Pintrich, 1997, Ryan, Hicks, and Midgley, 1997)
- probably (but less consistent) with regard to challenge avoidance
- No significant relationship to cheating: "this is somwhat puzzling given that mastery goals represent a desire for learning, improvement, and mastery of the material. Such a goal orientation should lead students to avoid behaviors that undermine learning (i.e. handicapping) and to disdain cheating, but such relations have often not been found in our data.
[[I wonder about this: when I do L2 language tests, for example, I don't mind "cheating" in the sense of looking at the answers if I can almost guess them.
-
Contains a survey of the authors' own research on each topic (self-handicapping, avoidance of help-seeking behaviour, avoidance of challenge, and cheating.
-
Urdan, Tim, Allison M. Ryan, Eric M. Anderman, and Margaret H. Gheen. 2002. “Goals, Goal Stuctures, and Avoidance Behaviours.” In Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning, edited by C. Midgley, 55–85. Taylor & Francis.
Looks at four behaviours associated with performance avoidance: self-handicapping, avoidance of help seeking, preference for avoiding novelty, and cheating
-
-
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org
-
value. The final model was significant, F(l, 349) = 52.80, p < .001 (R2 = .51). There was a significant gender main effect, ? = 08, ?(349) = 1.98, p < .05, indicating that females' intrinsic value was higher at Time 2 than males' intrinsic value, controlling for intrinsic value at Time 1. T
Women have stronger intrinsic motivation, even after grading, than males do.
-
The Journal of Experimental Education, 2005, 73(4), 333-349 Changes in Self-Efficacy, Challenge Avoidance, and Intrinsic Value in Response to Grades: The Role of Achievement Goa
Shim, Sungok, and Allison Ryan. 2005. “Changes in Self-Efficacy, Challenge Avoidance, and Intrinsic Value in Response to Grades: The Role of Achievement Goals.” The Journal of Experimental Education 73 (4): 333–49.
Studies the extent to which grades impact challenge avoidance. Makes a distinction between performance-avoidance goals and performance-approach goals. Argues that other literature has shown that only performance avoidance behaviour is maladaptive.
-
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.
-
. 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
-
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.
-
Achievement goals were important to changes in motivational constructs around the receipt of grades in the classroom. As expected, the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivational constructs were moderated by grades. When students received high grades, a performance-approach goal was unrelated to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, or intrinsic value. However, when students received low grades, a performance-approach goal was related to decreased intrinsic value and increased desire to avoid chal lenge. Thus, although a performance-approach goal does not seem to have draw backs in the context of success, there are drawbacks when students experience setbacks
When students achieved low grades, a performance approach goal was related to decreased intrinsic value and increased desire to avoid challenge.
-
in recent years, some researchers have concluded that it is only perfor mance-avoidance goals that have drawbacks and that performance-approach goals promote high achievement and do not affect motivation and engagement negatively
Performance avoidance is bad; performance approach motivation may be good.
-
Discussion
Discussion section
-
Intrinsic value. We adapted items developed by Eccles (1983) to assess students' intrinsic value regarding their academic work in the class. This section of the sur vey asked students, "What is your opinion of this class along the following di mensions?" Students rated the "enjoyment of work" on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all enjoyable) to 7 (very enjoyable), "interest in the work" on a scale rang ing from 1 (very boring) to 7 (very interesting), and "liking what is learned" on a scale ranging from 1 (a little) to 7 (a lot). Alpha coefficients for the three items were .92 at Time 1 and .93 at Time 2
Intrinsic value questions.
-
Preference to avoid challenging work. Preference to avoid challenging work (4 items) assesses students' desires for easy, familiar tasks (Urdan, Ryan, Ander man, & Gheen, 2002). Sample items are "I prefer doing work that does not make me think too hard" and "I prefer assignments that I know I can do rather than those that are a challenge." The measure was found to be reliable in our sample (a at Time 1 = .85; Time 2 = .85)
Survey questions on preference to avoid challenging work
-
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.
-
In summary, our main goal was to examine how students' achievement goals are related to changes in self-efficacy, preference to avoid challenge, and intrin sic value in the face of evaluation. Early in the semester, we assessed students' achievement goals, self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value. We assessed students' self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value again immediately after they received their grades on their first major exam or paper. This design allowed us to examine the role of goals in the change in mo tivational constructs associated with performance feedback. Our main hypothe ses were (a) a mastery goal will be associated with enhanced motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., increased efficacy and value and lower preference for chal lenge avoidance); (b) a performance-avoidance goal will be associated with di minished motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., decreased efficacy and value and increased preference for challenge avoidance); and (c) the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivation will be moderated by grades. When students encounter low grades, a performance-approach goal will be relat ed to diminished motivation. When students receive high grades, a performance approach goal will be unrelated to changes in motivation.
The method. Should see if I could replicate this.
-
Shim & Ryan 337 Furthermore, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with declines in motivational constructs, even in the context of high grades. A perfor mance-avoidance goal brings about negative achievement-related processes re garding evaluation. A performance-avoidance goal is associated with construing exams as a threat; incurring negative emotions, such as worry, fear, and anxiety; and the desire to escape exam situations (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). A perfor mance-avoidance goal, undergirded by a fear of failure, inherently involves a focus on a negative outcome (Elliot, 1999). With a performance-avoidant frame work, positive feedback is interpreted as "not failing" or "not being the worst." Al though such an assessment satisfies a performance-avoidance goal, it is unlikely to boost motivation, as the absence of something negative is not evidence of some thing positive. Thus, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with diminished motivation, regardless of whether grades are high or
Performance avoidance goals see exams as a threat, see failure as reflecting lack of ability, and positive feedback is interpreted as "not failing" or "not being the worst."
-
Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed (a
Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed.
-
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.
-
We expected a mastery goal to be associated with increases in motivation in response to grades. A mastery goal is associated with construing exams as a chal lenge and incurring positive emotions, such as eagerness, hopefulness, and ex citement (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). It is also associated with the belief that in telligence is a malleable attribute that can be developed through effort (an incremental theory of intelligence; Dweck, 1999).
If exams are understood as challenging, then they are seen as positive and a mastery goal results.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
performance-approach goal has been positively associated with self-efficacy (Bong, 2001; Pajares et al; Skaalvik; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), desire to avoid challenging work (Meyer, Turner, & Spencer, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 2002), and task value (Bong; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Wolters et al). However, some researchers have found no relation between a performance-ap proach goal and self-efficacy (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares et al.) or task value (Lopez, 1999; Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2001), so it is not clear whether this is always the case
Performance approach goals are positively associated with self-efficacy, but also to challenge avoiding behaviour.
-
udy, a mastery goal is positively associated and a performance-avoidance goal is nega tively associated with self-efficacy, challenge-seeking, and intrinsic value (Mid dleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares, Britner, & Vahante, 2000; Skaalvik, 1997).
Mastery goals are positively associated with "self-efficacy, challenge-seeking, and intrinsic value"; performance avoidance goals are negatively associated with these same values.
-
contrast, a performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. Performance goals can be distinguished as either approach or avoidant (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). A performance-approach goal concerns a focus on gaining favorable judgments of one's ability, and a performance-avoid ance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgments of one's ability. Achievement goals represent disparate purposes for involvement regarding aca demic tasks and, as such, have been linked to different achievement-related processes and outcomes
Performance-approach goals focus on gaining a favourable judgement;
Performance-avoidance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgements.
-
performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. P
A performance goal is a goal of demonstrating competence--i.e. on the demonstration.
-
mastery goal concerns a focus on developing competence and gaining understanding or mastery. I
Mastery goal is an intrinsic motivation on mastery.
-
chievement goals capture meaningful distinctions in how individuals orient themselves to achieving competence in the academic setting (Ames, 19
Definition of achievement goals. See also the next note.
-
Our purpose in this study was to examine the role of college students' achieve ment goals in changes in their self-efficacy, preference to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value in response to grades on an important task in the classroom (first major exam or paper of the academic yea
Point is to study how motivation changes in response to grading, especially challenge avoidance.
-
rades are widely recognized as important in our society and carry importance for students. Grades are the basis for many ca reer decisions, including how students perceive themselves and their schoolwork. The potential undermining effect of grades for student motivation has been dis cussed often (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Kohn, 1993). Despite the importance of grades for student motivation, there has been little research examining how classroom grades relate to changes in students' motivation. Prior research has more often fo cused on different facets of performance feedback in the lab setting (Deci, Koest ner, & Ryan, 2001; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). T
Grades are an important aspect of student's lives and used by students themselves, even though they have motivational implications.
-
-
www.umich.edu www.umich.edu
-
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.
-
-
serval.unil.ch serval.unil.chREF9
-
. First,although grading has been shown to provoke challenge avoidance(Harter, 1978
Grading has been shown to provoke challenge avoidance behaviour
-
Importantly, both Elliot (1999) and Pintrich (2000) have arguedthat strong situational cues or contexts can override the effects ofchronic goal orientation. In the case of graded assessments, whenis the situational cue most salient? According to Harackiewicz,Manderlink, and Sansone (1992), when a performance-contingentreward such as a grade is attached to performance, performanceevaluation is anticipated and can arouse motivational and emo-tional consequences in the individual prior to engaging in a task.Thus, pretask performance goals would seem to be a fruitful stategoal area to explore, particularly as pretask performance goaladoption has important consequences on task performance andrelated outcomes (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; McGregor & Elliot,2002).
When or how can the performance-orientation of grades be mitigated? "Manderlink and Sansone (1992) [argue that], when a performance-contingent reward such as a grade is attached to a performance, performance evaluation is anticipated and can arouse motivational and emotional consequences in the individual prior to engaging in the task."
-
Kluger and DeNisi (1996), in their presentationof feedback intervention theory, used grading as an example of anexternal intervention likely to render metatask processes concern-ing self-goals, such as performance goals, salient at the expense oftask-related goals.
grades focus attention on performance/self goals rather than task goals.
-
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.
-
Grades, a value-laden symbol indicating the rela-tive quality of a performance that is a regular feature of school life(Pope, 2001), are positioned firmly on the evaluative side of thistypology. The value of a grade reflects certain norms, and thegrade attributed reflects the degree to which normatively deter-mined standards have or have not been attained
Describes grades as "value laden"
-
a typology of assessment feedback, Tunstall and Gipps(1996)
Tunstall and Gipps 1996: A typology of assessment feedback.
-
Dependence on those who distribute valued resources isthe equivalent of powerlessness, and powerlessness has been as-sociated with a basic inhibition or avoidance motivational orien-tation (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003
Dependence is equivalent of powerlessness, and powerlessness leads to inhibition, avoidance.
-
Evaluation is an inescapable feature of academic life with regular grading and performance appraisals atschool and at university. Although previous research has indicated that evaluation and grading inparticular are likely to have a substantial impact on motivational processes, little attention has been paidto the relationship between grading and approach versus avoidance achievement goals, 2 fundamentalconcerns whenever evaluation is at stake. Three experiments, carried out in professional schools, revealedthat expectation of a grade for a task, compared with no grade, consistently induced greater adoption ofperformance-avoidance, but not performance-approach, goals. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that expec-tation of a grade, compared with no grade, consistently induced greater adoption of performance-avoidance goals even when grading was accompanied by a formative comment. Furthermore, Experiment3 showed that reduced autonomous motivation measured after having completed a task for a grade versusno grade mediated the relationship between grading and adoption of performance-avoidance goals in asubsequent task. Results are discussed in the light of achievement goal and self-determination th
Abstract: expectation of a grade consistently introduced greater adoption of performance-avoidance, but not performance approach, even when accompanied by formative comment.
-
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.
-
-
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
-
Brookhart (2008, p.8) concludes, “the grade ‘trumps’ the comment” and “com-ments have the best chance of beingreadas descriptive if theyare not accompanied by a grade.”
Grades "trump" comment. From Brookhart 2008 p. 8.
-
Butler R, Nisan M (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related com-ments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. J EducPsychol78,
Looked at feedback only, grade only, and no comment. Not clear if grades counted or not. And they received only grades.
-
Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)
Schinske, Jeffrey, and Kimberly Tanner. 2014. “Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently).” CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (2): 159–66. doi:10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054.
Has a good brief history of grading.
-
Grades appear to play on students’ fearsof punishment or shame, or their desires to outcompete peers,as opposed to stimulating interest and enjoyment in learningtasks (Pulfreyet al., 2011)
grades motivate to avoid shame or punishment or to competitive instincts rather than stimulate learning.
-
Swinton (2010) additionally foundthat a grading system that explicitly rewarded effort in ad-dition to rewarding knowledge stimulated student interestin improvement. This implies that balancing accuracy-basedgrading with providing meaningful feedback and awardingstudent effort could help avoid some of the negative conse-quences of grading.
Grading systems that explicitly reward effort in addition to knowledge stimulate student interest and improvement.
Implies that accuracy-based grading with meaningful feedback and awarding student effort could help avoid some of the negative consequences of grading.
-
icol and Macfarlane-Dick argue that studentshave been deprived of opportunities to become self-regulatedlearners who can detect their own errors in thinking. T
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006 argue that instructor-initiated grading deprives students of opportunities to become self-regulated learners.
-
ssessing ef-fort and participation can happen in a variety of ways (Beanand Peterson, 1998; Rocca, 2010). In college biology courses,clicker questions graded on participation and not correct-ness of responses is one strategy. Additionally, instructors canhave students turn in minute papers in response to a ques-tion posed in class and reward this effort based on submissionand not scientific accuracy. Perhaps most importantly, biol-ogy instructors can assign out-of-class work—case studies,concept maps, and other written assignments—that can pro-mote student practice and focus students’ attention on keyideas, while not creating more grading work for the instruc-tor. Those out-of-class assignments can be graded quickly(and not for accuracy) based on a simple rubric that checkswhether students turned the work in on time, wrote the re-quired minimum number of words, posed the required num-ber of questions, and/or included a prescribed number ofreferences. In summary, one strategy for changing grading isto balance accuracy-based grading with the awarding of someproportion of the grade based on student effort and partic-ipation. Changing grading in this way has the potential topromote student practice, incentivize in-class participation,and avoid some of the documented negative consequencesof grading.
Ways of assessing effort: all of these seem pretty programmatic, however, and encourage gaming.
-
ne strat-egy for focusing students on the importance of effort andpractice in learning is to provide students opportunities toearn credit in a course for simply doing the work, completingassigned tasks, and engaging with the material. A
one strategy is to earn credit for completing the work.
-
Multiple research studies described above suggest that theevaluative aspect of grading may distract students from afocus on learning. While evaluation will no doubt alwaysbe key in determining course grades, the entirety of stu-dents’ grades need not be based primarily on work thatrewards only correct answers, such as exams and quizzes.Importantly, constructing a grading system that rewards stu-dents for participation and effort has been shown to stimulate
Evaluative grading distracts students.
Effort-focussed grading stimulates interest
-
In part, grading practices in higher education have beendriven by educational goals such as providing feedback tostudents, motivating students, comparing students, and mea-suring learning. However, much of the research literature ongrading reviewed above suggests that these goals are oftennot being achieved with our current grading practices. Ad-ditionally, the expectations, time, and stress associated withgrading may be distracting instructors from integrating otherpedagogical practices that could create a more positive and ef-fective classroom environment for learning.
Grading is in part used to provide feedback and to rank students. But studies show that it is ineffectual or counterproductive at both.
-
Rather than motivating students to learn, grading appearsto, in many ways, have quite the opposite effect. Perhaps atbest, grading motivates high-achieving students to continuegetting high grades—regardless of whether that goal alsohappens to overlap with learning. At worst, grading lowersinterest in learning and enhances anxiety and extrinsic moti-vation, especially among those students who are struggling
summary: grading does the opposite of motivating students.
Good epigraph?
-
High-achieving students on initial graded assignments ap-pear somewhat sheltered from some of the negative impactsof grades, as they tend to maintain their interest in completingfuture assignments (presumably in anticipation of receivingadditional good grades; Butler, 1988). Oettinger (2002) andGrant and Green (2013) looked specifically for positive im-pacts of grades as incentives for students on the thresholdbetween grade categories in a class. They hypothesized that,for example, a student on the borderline between a “C” anda “D” in a class would be more motivated to study for a finalexam than a student solidly in the middle of the “C” range.However, these studies found only minimal (Oettinger, 2002)or no (Grant and Green, 2013) evidence that grades moti-vated students to perform better on final exams under theseconditions
Even borderline students (i.e. students on the line between a C and B) and not motivated to study by grading.
-
Rather than seeing low grades as an oppor-tunity to improve themselves, students receiving low scoresgenerally withdraw from class work (Butler, 1988; Guskey,1994). While students often express a desire to be graded,surveys indicate they would prefer descriptive comments togrades as a form of feedback (Butler and Nisan, 1986).
Students say they want to be graded but actually would prefer descriptive comments
-
Even providingencouraging, written notes on graded work does not appearto reduce the negative impacts grading exerts on motivation(Butler, 1988
encouraging notes with grades don't help
-
Grades can dampen existing in-trinsic motivation, give rise to extrinsic motivation, enhancefear of failure, reduce interest, decrease enjoyment in classwork, increase anxiety, hamper performance on follow-uptasks, stimulate avoidance of challenging tasks, and heightencompetitiveness (Harter, 1978; Butler and Nisan, 1986; But-ler, 1988; Crooks, 1988; Pulfreyet al., 2011)
dampen intrinsic motivation, encourage intellectual conservatism
-
rather than stimulating an interest in learning, grades pri-marily enhance students’ motivation to avoid receiving badgrades (Butler and Nisan, 1986; Butler, 1988; Crooks, 1988;Pulfreyet al., 2011)
Grades primarily motivate people to avoid receiving bad grades
-
ur current“A”–“F” grading system was not designed with the primaryintent of motivating students. Rather, it stemmed from effortsto streamline communication between institutions and di-minish the impacts of unreliable evaluation of students fromteacher to teacher (
Current grading system was designed for institutions, not students. It was a ranking and inter-rater consistency system (in fact in the beginning one hidden from the students) rather than something designed to improve performance.
-
Grading does not appear to provide effective feedback thatconstructively informs students’ future efforts. This is partic-ularly true for tasks involving problem solving or creativity.Even when grading comes in the form of written comments, itis unclear whether students even read such comments, muchless understand and act on them.
Summary: grading does not provide effective feedback, and students don't read descriptive comments.
-
arbleet al.,1978; Butler 1988; Pulfreyet al., 2011
Addition of grades to descriptive feedback failed to enhance student performance.
-
Anecdotal accounts, as well as some studies, indicate thatmany students do not read written feedback, much less useit to improve future work (MacDonald, 1991; Crisp, 2007). I
Studes suggest that students don't read descriptive feedback
[assigning non-counting grades may be a way of summarising this]
-
Butler and Nisan (1986) compared theimpacts of evaluative feedback, descriptive feedback, and nofeedback on student achievement in problem-solving tasksand in “quantitative” tasks (e.g., those requiring quick, timedwork to produce a large number of answers). They foundthat students receiving descriptive feedback (butnotgrades)on an initial assignment performed significantly better onfollow-up quantitative tasks and problem-solving tasks thandid students receiving grades or students receiving no feed-back. Students receiving grades performed better on follow-up quantitative tasks than students receiving no feedback,but did not outperform those students on problem-solvingassignments. In other words, providing evaluative feedback(in this case, grades) after a task does not appear to enhancestudents’ future performance in problem solving.
Butler and Nisan compared descriptive, evaluative, and no feedback on quantitative assignments. Best was descriptive but no grades; next best was grades; last was no feedback.
-
Feedback is generally divided into two categories: eval-uative feedback and descriptive feedback. Evaluative feed-back, such as a letter grade or written praise or criticism,judges student work, while descriptive feedback provides in-formation about how a student can become more competent(Brookhart, 2008, p. 26
Discussion of the different types of feedback: evaluative (praise or criticism), and descriptive (neutral information about areas for improvement).
-
Higginset al., 2002
Discusses student desire for feedback
-
-
www.tandfonline.com www.tandfonline.com
-
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, Paul, and Dylan Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5 (1): 7–74.
This is the original work in the area.
Largely a literature review from 1988 through 1998.
-
-
pareonline.net pareonline.net
-
This manuscript provides a critical examination of the formative assessment literature in particular issues related to the formative assessment lexicon, Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal work, and more recent research. Finally, this manuscript provides the foundation for a series of manuscripts on “best practices” for evaluating student achievement through the use of formative assessment.
abstract. reviw of lit on formative assessment.
-
A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education
Dunn, K E, and S W Mulvenon. 2009. “A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessment: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessment in Education.” Assessment, Research & Evaluation.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
dpod.kakelbont.ca dpod.kakelbont.ca
-
professor’s perspective in a particular cla
This is actually an important point: unlike other surveys of effort, this one relies on professors' estimation rather than student surveys. I.e. professors can assess effort.
-
ConclusionsThis paper finds that the effort grade affects theknowledge grade positively and significantly across allspecifications. This is strong evidence that more studenteffort does lead to increase learning
Paper concludes that effort affects the knowledge grade positively and significantly across all specifications. This is evidence that more student effort does lead to increased learning.
-
The following examples illustratesome choices a professor can make. Suppose a professordecides to maximize student’s grades by giving all studentsthe best possible grade. If the professor does this, studentshave no incentive to put forth effort. Even worse, the sig-nal, which is just the grade, does not tell future employersanything about the students’ ability.If a professor decides instead to maximize the effortgiven, the professor gives all the credit to effort as opposedto knowledge. This maximizes the effort expended by thestudents, however, the signal only tells employers how thestudent is at giving effort and not what the student knows.If a professor instead decides to give credit only forknowledge as opposed to effort, this may cause studentsbelow a certain ability level to give no effort. This policy sig-nals to future employers which students have low or highability. However, the policy will not induce all students togive effort.9Therefore, the problem is how do you induceall students to give effort without lowering the amount ofknowledge gained by the students or weakening or mini-mizing the signal that is sent to future employe
Options available to professors to maximise effort
- if you give everybody the maximum grade, there is no incentive to perform
- If you give all the credit to effort, then the signal is about how much you did and not what you learned
- if you credit only knowledge, it may cause people below a certain intrisic skill or preparation to drop out. (low motivated students to not react well to poor grades)
-
d. A stu-dent’s grade is a signal to future employers about thestudents’ ability, therefore, students want to maximize thegrade that they receive in a class. The goal of the pro-fessor/administrator, hereafter called the professor, is toassign grades that maximize the informational learning ofthe students. Students generally want to put in the leastamount of effort to earn a given grade—the measure ofthe knowledge that the student has mastered in the class.8The professor wants to maximize the signal that the gradegives to future employers, i.e. to have the student earn thehighest grade, but does not want to lower the amount ofknowledge that the students are required to lear
A model of the economics of grading:
-grades are signals to others about ability -grades are also a way of signaling to students about performance (feedback) -students want to maximise grades to signal ability -professors want high informational quality of grade (and optionally) the signal value to others -students want the maximum grade they can get for the effort they put in (grade inflation) -professors want the greatest possible learning for the grade (grade deflation).
-
s. Thismeasure includes class attendance, whichRomer (1993),Dobkins, Gil, and Marion (2010)and others, find is relatedto performance
Studies finding that class attendance affects performance.
-
endogeneit
~=feedback (e.g. rewards accrue to the rich who then become richer and acquire more rewards).
-
study time did have an impact ongrades, whereas class attendance did not. Running a regres-sion on separate categories of students, they found thatstudents who study throughout the week derived morebenefits than crammers. In contrast to Schuman et al., theyfound that an increase in academic effort was rewardedwith higher grades.Rau and Durand (2000)also tested theeffects of effort on college grades. They found that studentswho studied daily and have better study habits performedbetter on tests, even if they had lower standardized testscores. They concluded that effort made a difference atIllinois State University.Schuman (2001)replied toRauand Durand (2000)that the difference in results were duemainly to the fact that Rau and Durand used somewhatdifferent measures of effor
Some studies showed that regular study did improve scores, as opposed to cramming.
-
at study time during theweek was not related to any measure of college grades,while study time on the weekend was significantly and pos-itively correlated with all measures of college grad
Study time was not related to any measure of college grades, except study time on weekends (probably = intrinsic interest).
-
The authors found no significant increase inthe relationship between time studied and GPA. An organicchemistry lab was also studied. For this specific class, therewas even less evidence that the amount of time spentstudying affected achievement as measured by grades. Thepaper concluded that study time and grades may have asubstantial relationship, but the measures of effort in anindividual study day may not capture the variation thatoccurs from day to day
No relationship between time studied and GPA.
-
Conventional wisdom suggests that the more effort astudent puts forth, the better grade the student will earn.However, researchers find mixed results when examiningthis relationship. This finding may be due to the less thanideal manner in which effort has been measured in theliterature. Moreover, existing estimates regarding the linkbetween effort and grades are biased because the estimatesignore the stochastic nature of effor
Conventional wisdom suggests that greater effort will improve grades. But this ignores the schochastic nature of effort (and I'd argue, knowledge).
-
The unique aspect of this policy is that, for freshmanand sophomore level courses, effort is a separate compo-nent part of a student’s grade.3The SE2policy requires aprofessor to report two grades to the registrar for studentstaking freshman and sophomore level courses: effort andcontent learning (knowledge). The administration weightsthe two grades differently for freshman and sophomorecourses.Tables 1 and 2present the final grade outcomes forfreshman and sophomore courses, respectively. Roughlyspeaking, knowledge and effort grades are weighted 40%and 60%, respectively, for freshman courses and 60% and40% in sophomore course
Grading system reports and weighs content and effort separately (40% 60%) for freshmen and sophmores.
-
The effect of effort grading on learnin
Swinton, Omari H. 2010. “The Effect of Effort Grading on Learning.” Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 1176–82. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.014.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
THE GRADING OF STUDENT
Meyer, Max. 1908. “The Grading of Students.” Science, New Series, 28 (712): 243–50.
-
-
Local file Local fileLayout 11
-
WhereAIsOrdinary:TheEvolutionofAmericanCollegeandUniversityGrading,1940-2009
Rojstaczer, Stuart, and Christopher Healy. 2012. “Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading, 1940–2009.” Teachers College Record 114 (7).
-
-
-
Ifyouhavefoundthecouragetogoawholesemesterorcoursewithoutanygrades,youwillbefacedwithapotentiallyparalyzingproblem:Howdoyoucomeupwithareportcardgradewhenyouhavenogradebook?WhenIfirstfacedthisproblem,IfoundmyselfwritingtoAlfieKohn,whereIoutlinedthatIwashappytoreportthatIhadreplacedeverydaygradingwithrealcommentsandconstructivefeedback,butthatIwasstrugglingwithhowIcouldconvertorsymbolizeallthefeedbackasagrade,notbecauseIwantedtobutbecauseIhadto.Kohn’sreplywastremendouslyhelpful:Myprimaryanswertoyourquestionis“Bringthekidsinonit.”Thisshouldbeadecisionyoumakewiththem,notforthem.Thatgoesforthegeneralclasspolicy(andtherationaleforit)aswellthespecificgradegiventoeachstudent.Someteachersmeetwitheachstudentindividuallyanddecidetogetherwhatthefinalgradewillbe.Others,whoaremorewillingtogiveupcontrolandempowerstudents,simplyletthestudentdecide.Theyinvariablyreportthatstudentsenduppickingthesamegradethattheteacherwouldhavegiven,andsometimestheyevensuggestalowerone.Buttheadvantagesoflettingthekidsdecideareincalculable,andtheprocessalsohasthesalutaryeffectofneutralizingthedestructiveeffectsofhavingtogivegradesinthefirstplace.(citedinBower,2010)Yearslater,Istillabidebythisprofoundadvice.Bringthekidsinonitremainsattheheartofmyanswertoanyonewhoasks,“Howdoyougradewithoutgrading?”First,evenifagradeismandatedforthereportcard,itmakesverylittlesensethattheonlywaytocomeupwithafinalgradewouldbetotakealistofotheraveragesandaveragethemtogethertogetafinalaverage(Wormeli,2006).
Let students set their own grades.
-
Infact,whenGallimoreandRolandactuallyrecordedandcategorized2,326ofCoachWooden’sactsofteaching,theyfoundthatonly6.6%wereactsofdisapprovalwhile6.9%wereactsofpraise(Coyle,2009).Thatmeansthemajorityofhisinteractionswithhisathleteswerejudgmentfreestatementsofinformation
Great coaches are stinting with praise and blame.
-
IhavecometolivebywhatAlfieKohnhasidentifiedasBruner’sLaw,whichistosaythatweshouldtryandcreateanenvironmentwherestudentscan“experiencesuccessandfailurenotasrewardandpunishment,butasinformation”(ascitedinKohn,1999e,p.191)
Bruner's Law: "We should try and create an environment where students 'can experience success and failure not as reward and punishment, but as information'."
-
OnceIwasabletomovepastsimplyasking“HowdoIgradebetter?”IrealizedthatIneededtofocusmoreon“WhydoIgradeatall?”Thereisalotofcommonsensearoundwhywegradestudents,butifyoulookclosely,theconventionalwisdomdoesnotmakeallthatmuchsenseandisunfortunatelyalltoocommon
Why do we grade:
1) To motivate (positively or negatively) 2) To rank and sort 3) To provide feedback
-
haddecidednottogradetheiressays.Iwasbeamingwithexcitement;theywerenot.Suddenly,theairbeneathmywingshaddisappeared.Myexcitementwaslostonthem,andIwasdisheartened.Butwhathappenednextbothappalledandenlightenedme.Istoodthereatthefrontoftheclassandheardwhatsoundedlikeall30ofthemyellinunison,“Youmeanwedidthisallfornothing?”InitiallyIfeltlikeIhadbeenkickedinthegut,butthenIfeltliketheGrinchwhenhisheartgrewthreesizesthatday.
Second part of quotation: like the grinch my heart grew..
-
IremembersearchingtheWebforalternativestogradingandfindinganarticletitled“TheCostsofOveremphasizingAchievement”(Kohn,1999b).ItwasthefirstAlfieKohnarticleIhadeverread,butitwouldbefarfromthelast,anditprovedtobethepedagogicalpillthatIhadbeenlookingfortocuremyailmentsforgrading.Irememberdevouringthearticleandreturningtomygrade8classroomthenextdaywithasenseofrevitalizedurgencythatIcouldnotwaittosharewithmystudents.Thatyearmyteachingassignmentincludedtwoclassesofabout30grade8studentswhomItaughtlanguageartsandscience.Inanefforttointegratethetwosubjects,Ihadassignedmystudentstowriteanessayontheparticlemodelofmatter.Asfarastheyknew,Ishouldhavebeengradingtheirpapers,butIwasabouttoblowtheirminds.Iwalkedintocl
Part one of quote on how students want to be graded because that's why they do the work.
-
Thepeoplewhohaveahardtimecomprehendinghowchildrencouldlearnwithoutextrinsicmanipulatorsconcernmethemost.Theyaresoinvestedintraditionalschoolingthattheyhaveneverquestioneditsfoundation.Unfortunately,somehaveadistrustfulviewofthenatureofchildren;theybelievethatwithoutgradingtherewouldbenothingtostopchildrenfromrunningamok
On how people who are against reduced grading are actually suspicious of children
-
Fortoolong,Iwaslettingschoolinggetinthewayofmyteachingandtoomanyofmyteachingpracticeswerebasedonpedagogythatwasatbestunhelpfulandatworstharmfultomylongtermgoals.Throughcriticalquestioningandextensiveresearch,Icametotheconclusionthatmypedagogyhadtorevolvearoundonepriority:learning.Iftherewerethingsthatworkedtosabotagelearning,thenitwasmyprofessionalresponsibilitytoremovethem
On the responsibility to remove practices that "let schooling get in the way of my teaching"
-
IamnotthesameteacherIusedtobe.WhenIstarted,Iwasfocusedonpowerandcontrol.Iassignedloadsofhomework,dishedouthugepenaltiesforlateassignments,assignedpunishmentsforrulebreakingbehavior,andaveragedmarkstodeterminethestudents’finalgrade.IdidsomeofthesethingsbecauseIwastrainedtodosoinuniversity.However,mostoftheseteachingstrategieswerebeingdonemindlesslyand,forthemostpart,IwassimplyteachingthewayIwastaught.
Learning to let go of the imperative to observe and grade.
-
IttookonlysixyearsbeforeIwantedtoquitteaching.Ihadbecomeincreasinglyunhappywithmyteachingandmystudents’learning.Iwastiredoflaboringthroughhoursandhoursofmarking,andIhatednaggingkidstocompletetheirhomework.Insteadofstudentsasking“Whatisthisquestionworth?”Iwantedthemtoactuallygetexcitedaboutthecontent.Iwantedchange,andIcameclosetothinkingthatchangerequiredmetoleavetheprofession
On how quickly poor teaching burns out teachers.
-
-
chalkdust101.wordpress.com chalkdust101.wordpress.com
-
Bruner’s Law -we want kids to regard success and failure as information not as reward and punishment.
Bruner's law
-
-
www.tandfonline.com www.tandfonline.com
-
It was of interest that all attribute categories of un- creative characteristic~ and almost all attribute catego- ries of creative traits (39 of 42) were suggested by both male and female teachers
Relatively little gender difference in perceptions of what makes for creativity (!)
I find this surprising, to be honest.
-
The respondents also de- scribed a creative person as one who has a collectivistic orientation, such as one who "inspires people," "has contribution to the progress of society" and "is appreciated by others." These descriptions, found in this sample of Chinese people, did not occur in U.S. investigations (Rudowicz et al., 1995
Chinese conceptions of creativity include collectivistic aspects of inspiration.
Authors indicate these did not come up in U.S. studies, but these could be artefacts of design method.
-
onventional, " "timid, " "lack of conjidence. "and "conforming. "
synonyms for lack of creativity
-
imaginative, " "always ques- tioning, " "quick in responding. " "active, " and "high intellectual ability, "
Synonyms for creativity
-
Implicit Theories of Creativity: Teachers' Perception of Student Characteristics in Hong Kong
Chan, David W., and Lai-Kwan Chan. 1999. “Implicit Theories of Creativity: Teachers’ Perception of Student Characteristics in Hong Kong.” Creativity Research Journal 12 (3): 185–95. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1203_3.
-
"self-directed," "curious," "original," "artistic," "intel- ligent," "interested in many things," "exploratory," "unique," "innovative," "flexible," "imaginative," "al- ways questioning," "nonconforming," "challenging," "uninhibited," "independent," "sensitive," "expres- sive," "inventive," and "good at designing."
Synonyms for creativity from teachers (from Runco 1984)
-
- May 2016
-
books.google.ca books.google.ca
-
p. 6 On knowledge fetishisation. Note he is writing in the period 1995-2000, before it became absolutely clear that this was vanishing and that it would become a fetish:
One purpose [for acquiring information[ is simply possession and the satisfaction it gives; witness the pride some people take in their phenomenal memory for trivia, their extensive libraries, their collections of compact disks, maps, or computer programs. Possessing information also confers prestige. Erudition and especially initiation into the esoteric knowledge of a small sect or secret society--Freemasons, cosmologists, and the like--have conferred prestige and awed the ignorant throughout history.
-
p. 5 argues that museums and botanical gardens are information systems.
-
Headrick, Daniel R. 2000. When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700-1850. Oxford University Press.
Notes (American spelling).
-
p. v. Has an interesting idea that the real contribution of the long eighteenth century to information was the ordering and typology systems.
-
p. 4 makes a distinction between knowledge and information and seems to understand information as being organisation of knowledge (actually is maybe confused a little about the distinction)
Information is not the same thing as knowledge, though the two concepts overlap. Knowledge refers to ideas and facts that a human mind has internalizedand understood: how to fix a flat tire, the names of a really good dentist, speaking French. Acquiring knowledge means absorbing a lot of information--for example, how to use French irregular verbs correctly. Often the mind acquires and organizes such information in a spontaneous and even subconscious fashion, the way a child learns to speak or a taxi driver knows her way around town. At other times, the acquisition of knowledge requires studying, a slow and difficult process. The amount of knowledge that a human mind can possess is truly extraordinary, but it is not infinite, nor is the mind reliable. Hence the need for information. As society becomes more complex and its interactions speed up, access to information becomes increasingly important. Education was once focused on learning, that is, on acquiring knowledge; it now stresses research skills. What matters is not knowing the answer, but knowing where to look it up. And that means the information is (one hopes) out there, readily accessible.
-
-
www.jstor.org.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca www.jstor.org.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
-
nalogies between teaching and various aspects of show business or guidance counseling are more often than not excuses for having abdicated the task
On why showy teaching is bad teaching p.3
De Man, Paul. “The Resistance to Theory.” Yale French Studies, no. 63 (1982): 3–20. doi:10.2307/2929828.
-
- Apr 2016
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
For ever since aristotle. About how easy it is now to remember.
-
-
-
White (1984, cited by Vaughan, 1991) reported on a study conducted at California State University in which two essays were tucked into a huge sample of essays and read a year apart by the same readers using a 6-point scale. The reading a year later produced scores that were identical to the first in only 20 per cent of the cases. The scores differed by one point or less in 58 per cent of cases and 2 points or less in 83 per cent of the cases. As White points out, a 1-point difference is generally considered unproblematic, but on a 6-point scale the difference between a 3 and a 4 is the difference between a pass and a fail. Obviously, then, changes in examiner severity/leniency over-time have implications for maintaining standards, and must be monitored. Research has been conducted into variations in examiner severity/leniency during the marking of a particular allocation of scripts, a marking period, and over more extended periods of time.
intrarater reliability is only 20%
-
According to Stemler, consistency estimates of interrater reliability assume that it is not necessary for judges to share a common meaning of the rating scale, so long as each judge is consistent in their classifications.
Wittgenstein's beetle in a box
-
(2004) notes that most research papers describe interrater reliability as though it is a single, universal concept. He argues this practice is imprecise and potentially misleading. The specific type of interrater reliability being discussed should be indicated. He categorises the most common statistical methods for reporting interrater reliability into one of three classes: consensus estimates; consistency estimates; and measurement estimates.
Stemler 2004
-
-
Local file Local filetitle3
-
in the latter both the wide differential in manuscript rejection rates and the high correlation between refereerecommendations and editorial decisions suggests that reviewers and editors agree more on acceptance than on rejection.
In "specific and focussed" fields, the agreement tends to be more on acceptance than rejection.
-
In the former there is also much more agreement on rejectionthan acceptance
In "general and diffuse" fields, there is more agreement on paper rejection than in "specific and focussed."
-
. Referees ofgrant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In
Grant referees are better at agreeing on inadequate work than adequate
-
-
deevybee.blogspot.com deevybee.blogspot.com
-
A system that assumes a "quite good" institution is unable to get better, and thus denies them the funds that would enable them to get better, is probably not an optimal system for promoting merit. A system that rewards in proportion to merit would at least be able to recognise and reflect the dynamism of university research; research groups wax and wane as people come, go, get disheartened, get re-invigorated.
On the importance of funding middle-ground
-
it could be argued that we don’t just need an elite: we need a reasonable number of institutions in which there is a strong research environment, where more senior researchers feel valued and their graduate students and postdocs are encouraged to aim high. Our best strategy for retaining international competitiveness might be by fostering those who are doing well but have potential to do even better
capacity requires top and middle.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
Manso (2011)
MANSO, G. “Motivating Innovation.”Journal of Finance, Vol. 66 (2011)
-
Lerner and Wulf’s (2007) study of corporate R&D lab heads.They show that higher levels of deferred compensation are associated with the production ofmore heavily cited patents, whereas short-term incentives bear no relationship to firm innovativeperformance
LERNER,J.ANDWULF, J. “Innovation and Incentives: Evidence from Corporate R&D.”Review of Economics and Statistics,Vol. 89 (2007), pp. 634–644
-
Tian and Wang (2010) show that start-up firms backed by morefailure-tolerant venture capitalists are more innovativeex post
TIAN,X.ANDWANG, T.Y. “Tolerance for Failure and Corporate Innovation.” Working Paper, Indiana University, 2010
-
Lazear (2000)
-
If incentives play an important role in theproduction of novel ideas, this heroic story might be atypical. In this article, we provide empiricalevidence that nuanced features of incentive schemes embodied in the design of research contractsexert a profound influence on the subsequent development of breakthrough ideas.
Thesis of article.
-
Mario Capecch
Nobel prize winner wins prize for research NIH panel thought was too risky.
Tags
Annotators
-
-
www.helga-nowotny.eu www.helga-nowotny.eu
-
excellencetorecognizeexcellence
Excellence to recognise excellence quotation.
-
-
we.vub.ac.be we.vub.ac.be
-
. I consider that my job, as a philosopher, is to activate the possible, and not to describe the probable, that is, to think situations with and through their unknowns when I can feel them
The job of a philosopher is to "activate the possible, not describe the probable."
-
-
-
5
Reference to GO::DH
-
-
www.uleth.ca www.uleth.ca
-
They have an obligation to develop and maintain competence and effectiveness within their area of expertise, to conscientiously prepare and organize their subjec
Obligation to develop and maintain competence.
-
VotingFour (4) persons selected through procedures established by the Faculty Council and approved by the General Faculties Council. The procedures shall provide for a system of alternates. Alternates shall replace regular members whose schedules would cause unreasonable delay in a committee’s proceedings or who would have a conflict of interest
Original Search Committee language
-
- Mar 2016
-
download.springer.com download.springer.com
-
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988). Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data.Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society A, 151, 419–463.
-
Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrarysignificance levels distort published results?Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 3–30
-
Gilbody, S. M., Song, F., Eastwood, A. J., & Sutton, A. (2000). The causes, consequences and detection ofpublication bias in psychiatry.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 241–249
-
Greenberg, S. A. (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: Analysis of a citation net-work.British Medical Journal, 339, b2680
-
Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewercommons.Ecology Letters, 12, 2–4
-
Kennedy, D. (2004). The old file-drawer problem.Science, 305, 45
-
Koletsi, D., Karagianni, A., Pandis, N., Makou, M., Polychronopolou, A., & Eliades, T. (2009). Are studiesreporting significant results more likely to be published?American Journal of Orthodontics andDentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 632e1
positive
-
Krzyzanowska, M. K., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2003). Factors associated with failure to publish largerandomized trials presented at an oncology meeting.Journal of the American Medical Association,290, 495–501
-
Levine, T., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated inmeta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against non-significant findings.Communication Monographs, 76, 286–302
-
Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peerreviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevelapproaches.Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326
-
Paris, G., De Leo, G., Menozzi, P., & Gatto, M. (1998). Region-based citation bias in science.Nature, 396,6708
-
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 86,638–641
p
-
Song, F. J., Parekh-Bhurke, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J. J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2009). Extent ofpublication bias in different categories of research cohorts: A meta-analysis of empirical studies.BMCMedical Research Methodology, 9, 79
-
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests ofsignificance—Or vice versa.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34
publication bias
-
-
download.springer.com download.springer.com
-
Osuna, C., Crux-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menedez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects ofevaluation systems on publication performance.Scientometrics, 86, 575–592
evaluation systems and publication performance
-
Pautasso, M. (2010). Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social sciencedatabases.Scientometrics, 85(1), 193–202
-
Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in thesocial sciences.Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100.
-
Shelton, R. D., Foland, P., & Gorelskyy, R. (2009). Do new SCI journals have a different national bias?Scientometrics, 79(2), 351–363. doi:
-
Silvertown, J., & McConway, K. J. (1997). Does ‘‘publication bias’’ lead to biased science?Oikos, 79(1),167–168.
-
Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Shakiba, B., & Mortaz-Hejri, S. (2006). Country development and manuscript selec-tion bias: A review of published studies.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 37
On developing countries and science
-
Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research’s disturbingtrend.Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 411–415. doi
replication research
-
Jeng, M. (2006). A selected history of expectation bias in physics.American Journal of Physics, 74(7),578–583
History of expectation bias in physics
-
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008a). Perfect study, poor evidence: Interpretation of biases preceding study design.Seminars in Hematology, 45(3), 160–166
effect of positive bias
-
Feigenbaum, S., & Levy, D. M. (1996). Research bias: Some preliminary findings.Knowledge and Policy:The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(2 & 3), 135–142.
Positive bias
-
Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2010). Dissemination andpublication of research findings: An updated review of related biases.Health Technology Assessment,14(8), 1–193. doi
positive bias
-
De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish—Bane or boon of academic life?Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 14(4), 321–329. doi:
On how increased pressure to publish diminishes creativity.
-
Several possible problems have been hypothesised, including: undue proliferation ofpublications and atomization of results (Gad-el-Hak2004; Statzner and Resh2010);impoverishment of research creativity, favouring ‘‘normal’’ science and predictable out-comes at the expense of pioneering, high-risk studies (De Rond and Miller2005); growingjournal rejection rates and bias against negative and non-significant results (because theyattract fewer readers and citations) (Statzner and Resh2010; Lortie1999); sensationalism,inflation and over-interpretation of results (Lortie1999; Atkin2002; Ioannidis2008b);increased prevalence of research bias and misconduct (Qiu2010). Indirect empiricalevidence supports at least some of these concerns. The per-capita paper output of scientistshas increased, whilst their career duration has decreased over the last 35 years in thephysical sciences (Fronczak et al.2007). Rejection rates of papers have increased in thehigh-tier journals (Larsen and von Ins2010; Lawrence2003). Negative sentences such as‘‘non-significant difference’’ have decreased in frequency in papers’ abstracts, while catchyexpressions such as ‘‘paradigm shift’’ have increased in the titles (Pautasso2010; Atkin2002). No study, however, has yet verified directly whether the scientific literature isenduring actual changes in conten
Good discussion (and bibliography) of problems involved in hyper competition
-
Formann, A. K. (2008). Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publicationbias.Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(5), 732–739. doi
estimate of positive bias in clinical trials.
-
Fronczak, P., Fronczak, A., & Holyst, J. A. (2007). Analysis of scientific productivity using maximumentropy principle and fluctuation-dissipation theorem.Physical Review E, 75(2), 026103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.75.026103.
On rising scientific productivity over shorter careers.
-
Atkin, P. A. (2002). A paradigm shift in the medical literature.British Medical Journal, 325(7378),1450–1451
On the rise of sexy terms like "paradigm shift" in abstracts.
-
Bonitz, M., & Scharnhorst, A. (2001). Competition in science and the Matthew core journals.Sciento-metrics, 51(1), 37–54
Matthew effect
-
-
download.springer.com download.springer.com
-
The results presented here suggest that competition among researchers haspronounced effects on the way science is done. It affects the progress of sciencethrough secrecy and sabotage and interferes with peer review and other universal-istic merit-review systems. It twists relationships within a field and can increase thelikelihood of a scientist engaging in misconduct. None of the focus-groupparticipants made reference to positive effects of competition on their work,despite the fact that the focus-group questions dealt in a general way with scientists’work and the norms of conduct that govern that work. If the protocol questions hadasked explicitly about competition, doubtless there would have been somediscussion about the positive aspects of science. In the context of the generalquestions, though, the scientists referred to competition as a constant and negativeforce that interferes with the way science is done. It is disconcerting to ponder theconsequences of competition, such as mistrust and defensive posturing, for acommunity that has long been committed—in principle—to shared ideas andcollegiality.
Conclusions on the negative results of competition
-
Competition is also manifested in scientists’ pressured haste, leading tocarelessness, which can verge on questionable behavior. One discussant talkedabout scientists ‘‘cutting a little corner’’ in order to get a paper out before others orto get a larger grant, and another said that she once published a result that she gotthree times in one week but could not replicate the following week
How competitiveness also results in error.
-
But there’s, I think there is a question of how you interpret the data, even ... ifthe experiments are very well designed. And, in terms of advice—not that I’mgoing to say that it’s shocking—but one of my mentors, whom I very muchrespect as a scientist—I think he’s extraordinarily good—advised me to alwaysput the most positive spin you can on your data. And if you try to present, like,present your data objectively, like in a job seminar, you’re guaranteed tonotgetthe job
Importance of "spinning" data
-
You are. And you know what the problems are in doing the experiments. And ifyou, in your mind, think that there should be one more control—because youknow this stuff better than anybody else because you’re doing it, you know—you decided not to do that, not to bring up what the potential difficulties are, youhave a better chance of getting that paper published. But it’s—I don’t think it’sthe right thing to do.
deliberate positive bias
-
dishonesty occursmore with the postdoc. Because they want to get the data—whereas if they don’tpublish, they don’t move on. And they, I think, are more likely to sort of fudge alittle bit here and there if they need to get the data done. Unless, like you say, youwatch them.
senior faculty over-estimate the likelihood of juniors committing misconduct.
-
One mid-career scientist told a story of how he and others in his lab counteractedan abuse of power by his mentor, a senior scientist, while he was in training. Hismentor received a manuscript to review that was authored by a ‘‘quasi-competitor.’’It presented results of experiments similar to those that were going on in thementor’s lab. The scientist continued, ‘‘That paper ... basically would have beat usto the punch. They would have published these results before us, and they wouldhave gotten credit, and not us. And my mentor, God bless him, sat on the paper.’’The mentor not only delayed writing the review but asked someone working in thelab to write it (a move of questionable ethicality in itself). That lab person and ourrespondent decided, in response, to stall their own work, so that their lab would nothave an unfair advantage over the group who submitted the paper for review. In theend, the original group got credit for the findings, while the respondent’s lab wasalso able to publish their slightly different findings. He ended his story with,‘‘Sometimes you’re in an awkward position, and you try to do the best thing you canunder the circumstances, within your own internal ethical clock or whatever. Andsometimes it’s ugly and it’s imperfect, but it’s the only thing you can do. If we hadgone to the mentor and voiced this objection, our careers would have been over. Ifwe had approached the journal—God forbid, forget it.’’ The speaker qualified thisstory by saying that it made him sound much more ethical than he actually is.
peer review deliberately delayed in order to slow competitor
-
The focus-group discussions showed, however, that scientists see peer review asaffording a unique, even protected opportunity for competitors to take advantage ofthem. In this sense, competition infects the peer review process, not only throughscientists’ competition with other applicants, but also through scientists’ distrust ofthe reviewers themselves, as competitors. The following exchange among mid-career discussants shows their sense of vulnerability
Evidence that peer-reviewers are competitors.
-
By contrast, others use it in thepublication process solely to maintain their competitive bid for priority in a line ofresearch inquiry, as a way to sabotage others’ progress. A scientist in an early-career group acknowledged the need to make results reproducible by telling people‘‘the whole recipe of the whole method’’ if asked directly, but then she talkedabout the ‘‘little trick’’ of not including all the details in a publication orpresentation. Like the scientists in a different group quoted above, she mentionedothers’ practice of taking photographs of poster presentations in order then topublish the results first. She said that people, in defense, ‘‘omit tiny little details’’:‘‘But sometimes in the publication, people, just to protect themselves, will not giveall the details. It’s always right, but maybe it’s not totally complete—to protectthemselves. Because your ideas get stolen constantly, and it’s so competitive ifyou’re a small lab.
sabotaging reproducibility
-
A more deliberate form of not sharing is the omission of critical details inpresentations, papers and grant proposals so that others will have difficultyreplicating and extending one’s own research.
Sabotaging reproducibility.
-
I know a large number of people in that category, in my own experience, who ...opted out because they didn’t want to play. They didn’t want to play the kind ofgames that have to be played to be successful, and in bringing in money and gettingthe papers out. There’s so much more than just doing good science that comes intoit. There’s so much communication and there’s salesmanship that has to go on
On the negative impact competition has on career choice
-
I really hate to admit this, but you do the same thing with your competitors asyou do with grant agencies. You sucker-punch them. You might have—when Isubmit a paper, I already have the next two or three papers’ worth of data. Imean, I know what I’m going to be publishing a year from now, mostly. But thepaper that comes out of my lab is Part A. Parts B and C are mostly on my desk.And I’ve put things in part A to basically entice my competitors into making anass out of themselves, or to second guess, or say, ‘‘Oh that must be wrongbecause of that, or something.’
Gaming referees.
-
You submit the first grant, youpropose the novel thing. You know damn well any study section that’s evenmildly conservative is going give you, ‘‘Well, it sounds promising.’’ Theymight give you a good score, you hope for a good score, but it’s not going toget funded, because it’s too novel, it’s too risky, it’s too blah blah. But youalready have the damn data. You know on the second resubmit, you’re goingto say, ‘‘Good point! We took that to heart. Oh, what a wonderful suggestion!We will worry about this too. Guess what? Here’s the data!’’ Shove it downtheir throat. And then it’s funded. Because, wow, you flagged them, yousucker-punched them. They said, ‘‘This is really novel, blah, blah. Boy if youcould only do that, that would be a great grant.’’ Well, you alreadydiddo it,and that’s the point. And you basically sucker-punch the study section intogiving you the money by default. They have to at that point. They don’t havea choice.
On the need to have results before funding is given.
-
Competition for funding, publications, scientific priority and overall career successleads scientists to describe their work in terms of strategies one might use in a game.Focus-group participants revealed that, like it or not, working within the scientificcommunity requires artful maneuvering and strategizing.
relationship of competition to explicit game-playing.
-
To publish. And sometimes publish in the right journals.... In my discipline ...there’s just a few journals, and if you’re not in that journal, then yourpublication doesn’t really count
Importance of "top" journals
-
In addition to that, the other thing that they focus on is science as celebrity.... Sothe standards are, ‘‘How much did it cost, and is it in the news?’’ And if it didn’tcost much and if it is not in the news, but it got a lot of behind-the-scenes talkwithin your discipline, they don’t know that, nor do they care
Importance of news-worthiness.
-
You’ve got to have a billionpublications in my field. That is the bottom line. That’s the only thing that counts.You can fail to do everything else as long as you have lots and lots of papers
Importance of publications in science--overrules everything else.
-
In short, there are many people (the oversupply factor) competing for prestigious,desirable and scarce rewards and resources (the funding factor), in a struggle thatbestows those rewards disproportionately on those of marginally greater achieve-ment (the tournament factor). This situation is supported to the detriment of that‘‘legion of the discontented’’ and to the benefit of senior investigators, because it‘‘generates good research by employing idealistic young graduate students andpostdoctoral fellows at low cost’’ [26]. In other words, the benefits accrue to fundingand employing institutions. This paper explores some of the costs that accompanythese benefits
Economic structure of competition at universities.
-
Richard B. Freeman and colleagues [28] havecharacterized the problem as follows: ‘‘Research in the biosciences fits a tournamenteconomic structure. A tournament offers participants the chance of winning a bigprize—an independent research career, tenure, a named chair, scientific renown,awards—through competition.... It fosters intense competition by amplifying smalldifferences in productivity into large differences in recognition and reward. Well-structured tournaments stimulate competition. Because the differences in rewardsexceed the differences in output, there is a disproportionate incentive to ‘win’’’(p.2293). Research environments in which only small numbers of scientists have theopportunity to gain significant attention increase the competitive stakes: playing thegame may be a gamble, but the payoff for winning is significant [28,36]
The tournament structure of biosciences.
-
Another perspective sees competition as a function not just of funding, but of thebalance between supply and demand of resources, particularly human resources. Inthe current competitive system, young scientists are pitted against one another forattractive career opportunities that are becoming increasingly scarce [28].Researchers, feeling the pressure to be first to present findings in their fields,employ armies of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and strive to maketheir laboratory groups the smartest and the fastest. The result is a ‘‘postdocbottleneck’’ [29] where the supply for highly educated and trained researchers farexceeds the demand [30–33]. In concrete terms, Donald Kennedy and colleagues[34] have described the structural problem as a source of excess supply of humancapital: ‘‘We’ve arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ,creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high’’(p. 1105). The system produces, they claim, a ‘‘legion of the discontented’’ [34].They argue that institutional and policy decisions about training scientists should becoupled to placement histories of recent graduates, numbers of intellectual offspringof faculty, and job markets for scientists. Roger L. Geiger [35] has suggested thatthe imbalance between supply and demand is due in part to deficiencies in graduate
Role of lack of positions. Interestingly, this has been shown by Fang et al to be not reflected in misconduct stats: i.e. the vast majority of scientific fraud is conducted by senior (male) scientists, not job hungry post-docs or grad students.
-
Analysts differ as to the reasons why competition has intensified. Some see thesituation in terms of money. Tempering the effects of competition is not a primeimpetus behind calls by the National Science Board [26] and by a recent coalition of140 college presidents and other leaders [27] for more federal funding for scientificresearch; however, some scientists see such advocacy movements in terms of easingcertain aspects of competition that are worsened by tight dollars. More money, morepositions, and overall expansion of the research enterprise would improve thesituation
role of funding
-
here are indications, however, that the natureof competition has changed in recent years. Goodstein [25] argues that this shift islinked to negative outcomes:Throughout most of its history, science was constrained only by the limits ofits participants’ imagination and creativity. In the past few decades, however,that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now held back mainlyby the number of research posts and the amount of research funds available.What had been a purely intellectual competition has become an intensestruggle for scarce resources. In the long run, this change, which is permanentand irreversible, will probably have an undesirable effect on ethical behavioramong scientists. Instances of scientific fraud will almost surely become morecommon, as will other forms of scientific misconduct (p. 31)
relationship of negative aspects of competition to change in funding model that promotes scarcity. See Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct.Academe, 88, 28–31
-
It is negatively correlated with subscription tonormative systems (either traditional or alternative) and sense of community
Scientific competition is is negatively correlated to eithical systems and sense of community.
-
Melissa S.Anderson [20] furthermore found that a competitive departmental environment inscience is positively correlated with exposure to misconduct, fears of retaliation forwhistle-blowing, and conflic
More evidence of correlation between competition and "exposure to misconduct".
-
Empirical findings show a strong, positive relationship between the level ofperceived competition in an academic department and the likelihood that depart-mental members will observe misconduct among their colleagues [19]
Higher the level of perceived competition in academic departments, the greater the liklihood that people will see misconduct among peers.
Tags
- peer review
- reproducibility
- bibliometrics
- replicability
- citation counts
- newsworthiness
- scarcity
- excellence
- strategy
- scientific misconduct
- gender
- leaky pipe
- bioscience
- scientific funding
- prestige
- game-playing
- scientific and scholarly communication
- tournament economic structure
- dissemination
- positive bias
- economics
- popular dissemination
- error
- impact factor
- results decay
- scientific integrity
- scientific competition
Annotators
URL
-