I was just talking to friend (we’re both in our late 40s) about how “different” it is being say 25 today and when we were that age in the 80s.
I have this feeling that life is harder now. But maybe 25 year olds have higher expectations, or feel entitled more than back then. I have the feeling that the marketplace is more competitive and that we provide little big picture guidance in that arena. I think that’s compounded by doting parents, grade inflation and a national predisposition to think we’re all just fabulous out of the box.
I’ve seen a few young adults struggling with the realization that when they get out there with the big fish, they’re teeny-tiny all of a sudden.
And maybe then, that’s the subtext–the out-there verses in-here tension which gets articulated in classrooms.

What do you think about this angle?

“It should be about learning not grade-earning.” (Creative Commons attribution, no derivatives, non-commercial by cmduke )

Many classes motivate simply by grades; the class goes through the motions of addressing content via less engaging methods and assessing learners only through objective, sometimes standardized exams. In that situation, perhaps the only real motivation for students becomes the grade; even in my own experience, there were classes I *had* to take or that become less interesting by the fourth class meeting. In those classes, my objective was to earn the grade I needed.

In that situation, the questions learners have focus on successfully playing the game: earning a grade. They’re trying to determine the importance of each activity within the context of the class. I’ve had a few students ask a few questions about the value of “quizzes” in my class; they’re not worth much because they’re primarily reading checks (and serve as some semblance of “traditional” testing since ALL other assessments are project based). Students will spend less time focused on the quizzes because of their value within the class. That’s a good decision. The “will this be on the test” questions from learners may simply be their attempt to clarify what’s important and not in the absence of that information being provided up front by the faculty.

I think it may go beyond that though. I think students may also be evaluating the importance and value of information or assignments within the context of their life outside the classroom. It’s not just about how information/assignment will affect their grade; there’s also an impact on the student’s personal/social life as well. If I can determine exactly what’s important and not, I can focus on just that information and successfully play the “earn my grade” game. That allows me to do other things with my time. I’ve had students make a risk/reward decision regarding the quizzes in my class – right in front of me. They accurately determine that it’s possible to not take ANY of the quizzes and still make a B to B+ in the class IF they do well enough on the projects and decide that the reward of not spending time on quizzes was worth losing the 10-15 points on their course average – because a B is sufficient and their time is more valuable. Some have even strategically taken X number of quizzes so that it’s still possible to get an A in the course by focusing entirely on the projects.

If a course doesn’t work to engage and challenge learners to apply new information to their life in some meaningfully relevant way, the course is a game they’re playing. That’s where better assignments, instructor enthusiasm and focusing on learning (rather than grade-earning) becomes critical. It’s about motivation… if the assignments and challenges: catch their attention, are relevant to their lives, seem achievable, and are personally satisfying to accomplish — learners will be engaged. (Keller’s (1986) ARCS model of motivation).

-cmd