How I measure success (or recognise failure, at least) varies between problems. Sometimes quantitative, sometimes qualitative. Sometimes based on theory and process, sometimes based on observation and outcome.
I rarely, however, find it meaningful to know "how close to the goal I landed" because that generally says more about the goal than the outcome.
So the assertion is that, if grades act as an extrinsic motivator, they replace passion/pride/curiousity as intrinsic motivators? That argument vaguely makes sense to me but personally it feels like more of a “both and”.
As for your approach to measuring success - no offense, but it sounds like the sort of vague, feel-good, don’t-fret-it sort of goal-setting that techniques like SMART goals, KPIs, and OKRs are intended to supercede. Do you do anything like those?
I would love to see your evidence to back this claim.
> Of course!
Can you tell me a little bit more about the pre and post measures you used? Were they numerical? Were they based on observable facts? Did they give you a sense of how close to (or far from) your goal you landed?