Should a teacher's job be to motivate?

[ragged]

I'm struggling to think this thru, apologies in advance if it descends to a ruck.

Friends of a friend moved their son to a different (much more expensive and prestigious) school because they don't like "the style" of teaching at old school: the main problem is apparently lack of motivation in the child (8yo boy).

The parents are fairly involved types, would be very supportive in his learning, I think, but I never thought of them as possibly "pushy" before.

I always thought of "motivation" as something that comes from within a person, with support and encouragement from parents+teachers, but fundamentally an internal thing: do I have the wrong perspective?

I partly ask because DS1 is quite bright but very lazy (homework is a constant battle), and I sort of feel guilty that maybe I should(??) have done more to make him more motivated -- better teaching, perhaps? Or is that a load of pants to think that way?

I had very few teachers (school or Uni) who I can call inspirational, perhaps it's just beyond me to understand teaching is supposed to be like that? Or is it?

I would have said teachers should be trying to motivate kids at school in the same way that line managers should motivate their staff in the world of work. I would see this as leadership. A good teacher is a good leader of learning.

Outside of school, it is parents who should motivate but at the end of the day it depends how conscientious the child is.

Part of DDs schools ethos is that teachers should motivate, encourage and support learning in all children.
This is the policy agreement produced by pupils and staff working together and any new pupil or member of staff signs up to this policy.

Yes. A good teacher will enthuse the pupils with a desire and a passion to learn and do well in the lesson and subject.

Yes, I think so. I've moved DD from one school where the attitude of most of the teachers seemed to be that they couldn't give a toss to a school where the staff are enthusiastic about teaching. That enthusiasm is infectious and DD is doing much better. She actually enjoys school more and is now more likely to be self motivated, ie; she'll now come home all excited about something they've covered in class and be looking more stuff up about it on the internet.

A teacher's job is to motivate, yes, but as part of a process which involves teaching a child to be self-motivated to learn IYSWIM.

I think enthusing and motivating are two different things entirely, and I don't think either one can be forced onto anyone.

I teach Secondary Science, and some kids come to my lessons willing to listen, learn and are already enthusiastic about the subject because they've had a good introduction to it at Primary or at home. Even some of these kids lose the enthusiasm that was once spilling out of them a few years before as the rest of teenage life takes hold. Then, motivation to learn, take interest or even just toe the line is non-existent.

And for the record, I think these schools that promise to motivate students are talking out of their asses. As the OP said, motivation is an internal construct, and no amount of effort from me is gonna make someone enthusiastic about The Blast Furnace, which I'm teaching to Y10 next week.

Maybe the word should be inspire rather than motivate, but yes a good teacher should be able to inspire a child to become self motivated.

DD is in her last year at primary school and has a brilliant teacher. She rushes upstairs when she gets home from school so that she can get her homework done before she does anything else. I have tried for years to get her to do that but this teacher has managed where I have failed.

I made a point of thanking him.

A good teacher should TRY to motivate but what some children need to become motivated is beyond what is possible for most people.

I object to the idea that lessons need to be all singing all dancing and there is a very real danger that the more a lesson becomes about motivation the less is actually learned.

It takes a huge amount of energy and crucially time to make a lesson really exciting and it's no wonder that most teachers only really pull out all the stops when they're being observed. To plan an observed lesson can take hours and that's just not possible to do for 3-5 lessons a day 5 days a week.

And teachers also have to get through the syllabus and teach appropriate skills and knowledge. Sometimes learning is going to be tedious and boring and it takes self-motivation (comes with aspiration and being able to see the long-term gains) to get through this.

The problem is that children are increasingly interested in instant gratification and expect to be entertained in all things.

But it sounds like in this case 'motivation' is actually another way of saying they want their son to be more challenged or are just interested in the kudos of a more prestigious school.

I love you, fivecandles

I want to print out your post and put in up in my classroom in fact. You are spot on.

Fivecandles,

Dammit, this is the sort of thing I was trying to say, but you said it much better!!!

As SleepingLion says, spot on!!!

In ancient times, I attended state and independent schools, and there was a huge difference in the teaching styles, but more importantly in the school cultures.

At the independent schools, children were encouraged and expected to achieve and gain pleasure from learning on a whole school basis.
The structure has to be in place for all the staff to be equally motivated and pulling in the same direction.

When i would fall behind in subjects in the independent schools, (i had to take quite a bit of time out) there were measures to bring me back up to scratch and i felt cared for by staff and other students. I wasn't the only student to have experienced this. What I'm trying to say, is that each pupil mattered.
In the state schools, it was pretty much survival of the fittest, and was an equally needed lesson.

Interesting a PP mentioned the long term goals - as a child I had no idea what mine were, what was possible going forward, what it was all for?

Careers advice was dull and didn't encourage us to be terribly ambitious. I think I'd have been far more motivated if we'd had interesting and vibrant people coming in to speak to us about their career choices.

I remember a politics teacher, very rough around the edges, telling me he had thought about becoming a barrister. I suddenly saw how this might be within my grasp if I wanted to go in that direction. Perhaps not impossibly difficult and only for the uber polished etc?