RICE - Reward, Ideology, Coercion, Ego - Drivers of Motivation

RICE is an acronym about 4 things that drive motivation:

Reward.

Ideology.

Coercion.

Ego.

Reward is fairly self-explanatory. Anything that a person determines to be fulfilling can be considered a reward, be it actual money, time to themselves, satisfaction, and so on.

Ideology is what a person values, believes in, and, often, informs their sense of purpose and direction. For example, if a person places a high value on honesty, then they would want to tell the truth or, at least, not lie.

Coercion is the use of pressure, even force, to get someone to do something. Most people resist and abhor this when it’s done to them. They may comply, but only to relieve that pressure.

Ego is a person’s image or perception of themselves that they wish to upkeep, not only for themselves, but in front of others as well.

Of the four, Ideology is the most powerful drive, followed by Ego, then Reward, and, finally, Coercion.

Coercion, once used, will break trust and increase suspicion and wariness. It frequently causes irreparable damage to a relationship and should not be used lightly.

I find RICE to be a useful acronym to keep in the back of my mind for a variety of things. Since I believe that we perform actions for specific reasons, it helps me to decipher a person’s reasons for doing or saying certain things.

While I may not agree with their actions, I can at least have an insight on why they may be doing something.

This gives me some leverage when negotiating with them or convincing them of something.

I’ve found this useful as an educator, when I’m doing business - buying and selling, as well as in various relationships that I have.

Saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right way is a very powerful thing.

It certainly opens up the possibility of manipulation, but, hopefully, you won’t have to resort to that.

An Exposé on the Education System?

I have frequently joked with colleagues, past and present, that, when I finally retire from being part of Singapore’s education system, I may write some sort of exposé on the people in it who make life difficult for their own colleagues, external vendors and, also, the very students they profess to be educating and nurturing.

No naming of names, of course. For the benefit of the students from those institutes of learning.

It’s no secret that not all educators should be educators.

And, certainly, every system has its flaws.

But to behave with so little regard for others than themselves in a profession that is clearly about others? That’s just not right, is it?

On the flip side, I have met passionate, courageous educators who give their all and more to their students.

I have also met numerous thoughtful, kind educators who consider others before themselves.

It isn’t them that we need to worry about, though we should be concerned for their well-being under such a difficult system with unrelenting expectations and grinding routines.

It is the relative few who need to be expelled from their positions.

If only the general public knew about these people and how much they adversely affect the lives of the students under their charge.

Well, since I’m still somewhat involved in the system, it isn’t time to do it yet.

Someday, it will be.

18 Years In Education Later, I May Have To Move On

18 years in education is not a short time.

I am seriously contemplating a move out of it.

For those who’ve known me for some time, this may seem unexpected. After all, it’s what most people I know have known me for, and know that I truly enjoy.

Thankfully, though, it’s not the only thing they know me for. I do have options.

Perhaps it’s worth talking about - why I’m thinking about leaving the education industry, at least in Singapore.

Those who are parents or are educators themselves know that our local education system has mandated a fairly recent “update” to the way schools are handling class allocation for their students.

Essentially, each class is “mixed” - with students from different backgrounds, who have different aptitudes, and who likely have different life experiences thus far.

Each student is projected to learn each subject at their pace and at a level that is projected to cater to them.

The intent behind it was noble. The marketing to the public was focused on the positive. The educators themselves were informed way ahead of time and deemed prepared.

The results are, to put it lightly, not great. Even taking into consideration the usual teething problems at the start of any huge change, there is a clear lack of support and knowledge of handling rising issues.

It all looks to me like a poorly-thought-out grand experiment and I’m not confident that it will yield the hoped-for results, at least not within the next 5 - 10 years.

Some schools had piloted the move since a couple of years ago, but, as of 2024, this is now a nation-wide programme.

As an educator for nearly 2 decades, I’ve had my share of difficult audiences.

What I haven’t faced in that time is the sheer number of difficult audiences over such a short time.

I cannot speak for the teachers in the schools, but, from my interactions with them, they, too, are facing difficulties.

Add this to the tremendously unfair practices around getting school programmes, which I have talked about before, and this becomes a serious push factor away from this sector.

Yes, my current employment revolves around this sector, and a move away from it will likely entail an end to this state of affairs.

It’s not an easy move to make, and I don’t relish the potential problems that doing so will bring.

That said, I am nearly at my limit with the current situation and, unlike teachers who are bonded to the system, I can much more easily make a move. I believe that, this time, I likely will.

Game Design and Making is Much More Than the End Product

I'm currently delving into a series of videos on game design and making.

Not because I intend to join the game-making community (though I'll never rule this out), but because I've been an avid gamer all my life, and I'm always interested in finding new angles and ways to make my lessons more interesting.

To get this out of the way, I think that the word "gamification" has become a grotesquely-overused buzzword that has lost its soul.

And, based on what I've witnessed so far, a lot of "game design" workshops run in local schools are just programming workshops with a gaming front cover.

The principles of making a game interesting, engaging, and fun seem secondary to producing some sort of rudimentary templated game on some standard platform.

Of course, one could argue that the time allocated is too short to produce a fully-fledged game, but then, why are there never board games, card games, or even sport-based games produced by the students in these workshops?

As huge an industry as video and mobile games is, not every game has to be digital.

I have no issue with teaching students programming and platform use, but if that's the goal of the programme, call a spade a spade and say that it's a programming workshop.

Game design and making is much more than just that.