> forget to search the reason why there is not motivation
The reason there is not enough motivation is because of competition. Let us go with a hypothetical scenario: You have a child who is weak in physics and good in chemistry and I have a child who is weak in chemistry and good in physics. They are friends and yet are also competitors. Do you think your child has any incentive to help my child get better at chemistry and my child has any incentive to help your child get better at physics? There is no incentive because competition at an individual level discourages team work and knowledge sharing. Mainly because this kind of competition is constrained by "Time". The only way our children can reduce the learning gap is by approaching the teacher, taking external tuitions or try to find the relevant material on the net (and do all this before the date of the examination). The teacher is unfortunately already overburdened (the country I come from is extremely competitive and the ratio of teachers to students is 1 to 40 and in some cases 1 to 70 or even 1 to 100). Very few can afford after-school tuitions. And tuitions is an extremely inefficient way to close the learning gap. It is obvious the child loses motivation to learn when encountered with such an environment where it has very few choices.
Now remove competition from the equation and our children have all the incentive to share unique perspectives on how they were able to gain knowledge with each other. This reduces burden on the teacher as well! It would move the needle from "time-bounded competition" to "cooperative competition not bound by time". It isn't like it doesn't exist already! Take gaming as an example: It is competitive and cooperative at the same time. Friends help each other get better at the game by sharing tips and tricks and then compete on equal footing. It is addictive for this very reason. Schooling is not addictive because there is no short-term benefits the child can get for all the effort it puts into. Even much less when it comes to sharing knowledge with peers. Even us adults are rewarded almost immediately for the work we put in. Where is such an incentive for children? There is none. Ranking is not equivalent by any measure. Ranking is not money. It doesn't bring any pleasure. If your child tops the class you think its peers will be proud of your child's achievements? It creates and develops all negative traits: jealousy, animosity, dejection, depression and arrogance; depending on which side of the coin the child falls under.
Expertise on the other hand is the best incentive. There is no greater satisfaction for the child than knowing that it has understood the subject matter completely. It will encourage it to study the subject further and tackle more complex topics. We should be striving for expertise not relative ranking.
The reason there is not enough motivation is because of competition. Let us go with a hypothetical scenario: You have a child who is weak in physics and good in chemistry and I have a child who is weak in chemistry and good in physics. They are friends and yet are also competitors. Do you think your child has any incentive to help my child get better at chemistry and my child has any incentive to help your child get better at physics? There is no incentive because competition at an individual level discourages team work and knowledge sharing. Mainly because this kind of competition is constrained by "Time". The only way our children can reduce the learning gap is by approaching the teacher, taking external tuitions or try to find the relevant material on the net (and do all this before the date of the examination). The teacher is unfortunately already overburdened (the country I come from is extremely competitive and the ratio of teachers to students is 1 to 40 and in some cases 1 to 70 or even 1 to 100). Very few can afford after-school tuitions. And tuitions is an extremely inefficient way to close the learning gap. It is obvious the child loses motivation to learn when encountered with such an environment where it has very few choices.
Now remove competition from the equation and our children have all the incentive to share unique perspectives on how they were able to gain knowledge with each other. This reduces burden on the teacher as well! It would move the needle from "time-bounded competition" to "cooperative competition not bound by time". It isn't like it doesn't exist already! Take gaming as an example: It is competitive and cooperative at the same time. Friends help each other get better at the game by sharing tips and tricks and then compete on equal footing. It is addictive for this very reason. Schooling is not addictive because there is no short-term benefits the child can get for all the effort it puts into. Even much less when it comes to sharing knowledge with peers. Even us adults are rewarded almost immediately for the work we put in. Where is such an incentive for children? There is none. Ranking is not equivalent by any measure. Ranking is not money. It doesn't bring any pleasure. If your child tops the class you think its peers will be proud of your child's achievements? It creates and develops all negative traits: jealousy, animosity, dejection, depression and arrogance; depending on which side of the coin the child falls under.
Expertise on the other hand is the best incentive. There is no greater satisfaction for the child than knowing that it has understood the subject matter completely. It will encourage it to study the subject further and tackle more complex topics. We should be striving for expertise not relative ranking.