Rewarding reading in school
Jul 19, 2020
Intro: The Undermining Effect
A recent opinion piece in Education Week suggested that associating reading with external motivators strips reading of its intrinsic joy, which makes students less likely to read in the long term (Ferlazzo, 2020). Here, I examine the literature surrounding this question and offer a few suggestions regarding how reading instruction might be improved.
The author’s position is based on something referred to by psychologists as the undermining effect. An influential 1971 experiment by Edward Deci showed that people who previously did a task for its own sake, upon being financially compensated for it, became less motivated to do the task once the reward was no longer being offered. The same pattern has been observed in a developmental context: children’s helping behaviors. Without any external rewards or social encouragement, young children around 20 months of age were seen to help experimenters who accidentally dropped something or were unable to open a cabinet door because their arms were full (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). Like adults, children find it intrinsically rewarding to help others. However, if provided an external incentive to help, children became less likely to do so in the future (Warneken & Tomasello, 2008). The same tendency was observed in 6- to 12-year-old schoolchildren. Murayama et al. (2010) identify patterns in reward-related regions of the brain that explain this phenomenon.
In addition to the undermining effect, a few other findings must be considered.
Ability Precedes Motivation
In order to enjoy reading, children must first be capable readers. A 2020 meta-analytic review found seven longitudinal studies showing that earlier reading is a stronger predictor of later motivation than motivation is of reading (Toste et al., 2020). The authors still consider motivation to be an important determinant and regulator of reading performance over time, but they caution that initial reading achievement may be necessary to drive the development of motivation over time; the alternative leads to disengaged learners (Guthrie et al., 2007; Hebbecker et al., 2019). Note that this conclusion was not restricted to intrinsic motivation. External incentives, too, may be insufficient during early stages. In addition to an encouraging climate, what is required is a hands-on, socially synchronous instruction process. Perhaps the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program that Ferlazzo suggests fits the bill, which would be an interesting topic for a future article.
Reward-Behavior Proximity
A 2008 study by Marinak and Gambrell found that the kind of reward predicted its effect on reading motivation. Elementary school students who received their choice of a book as a reward subsequently exhibited more intrinsic reading motivation, than students who could choose a token reward of equivalent value (Nerf balls, Pez dispensers, key chains, and friendship bracelets). Children are thought to perceive book rewards as an invitation into self-determination. Note, however, that the study found no statistically significant difference between the book reward and no reward conditions. In any case, rewards proximal to the target behavior may not undermine intrinsic motivation. Such interventions are worth trying when children are falling dangerously behind.
Expected vs. Unexpected Rewards
A final factor that may be important is whether rewards are presented as a pre-task motivator or as an unexpected bonus. Regarding nursery schoolchildren’s drawing behaviors, a study in 1973 showed that when children had knowledge of the reward prior to the drawing activity (expected-reward condition), their intrinsic motivation subsequently decreased—they produced less drawings in the absence of the reward (Lepper et al., 1973). But, when rewards were unexpectedly given afterwards, motivation did not decrease and in some cases increased. A 2002 meta-analysis of more than 140 experiments found the same division to be relevant; when rewards given after and not offered prior to the activity (unexpected), intrinsic motivation was unaffected (Pierce & Cameron, 2002).
These finding befit what we know about the brain; two dopaminergic reward-processing regions—the ventral striatum and ventral tegmental area—encode a “reward prediction error.” The strength of the signal is determined by the difference between expected reward magnitude and actual reward magnitude. An unforeseen reward is experienced as more pleasurable, predicts stronger memory encoding of the experience, and has a stronger effect on future behavior relative to an expected reward (Schultz, 2016; Glimcher, 2011; Jang et al., 2019). When an incentive is offered beforehand, an expectation is formed, and the ultimate dopamine signal is modulated by this initial prediction. However, when reading a book without an external incentive, one does not exactly know what kind of reward to expect, and any pleasure experienced, either from the book alone or from an awarded bonus, is surprising and more motivationally potent.
Conclusion
In sum, if you want to reward reading, make sure that the rewards are unexpected and reading-related.
References
Deci, E. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644
Ferlazzo, L. (2020). Allow Time for Children to Read Whatever They Want. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-allow-time-for-children-to-read-whatever-they-want/2020/11
Glimcher, P. (2011). Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: The dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 15647-15654. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014269108
Guthrie, J., Hoa, A., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., Humenick, N., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004
Hebbecker, K., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2019). Reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1598413
Jang, A., Nassar, M., Dillon, D., & Frank, M. (2019). Positive reward prediction errors during decision-making strengthen memory encoding. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(7), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0597-3
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
Marinak, B. & Gambrell, L. (2008). Intrinsic Motivation and Rewards: What Sustains Young Children’s Engagement with Text?. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070701749546
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(49), 20911-20916. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013305107
Pierce, W., & Cameron, J. (2002). A summary of the effects of reward contingencies on interest and performance. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(2), 221-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099969 Schultz, W. (2016). Dopamine reward prediction error coding. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 18(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2016.18.1/wschultz
Toste, J., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M., & McClelland, A. (2020). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relations Between Motivation and Reading Achievement for K-12 Students. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 420-456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science Magazine, 311(5765), 1301-1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121448
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1785-1788. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013860