With reward in sight, students up test scores

U. CHICAGO (US) — Offering students rewards just before standardized testing and giving the incentive right afterward can improve test performance dramatically, say researchers.

Educators have long debated the value of financial and other rewards as incentives, but a series of experiments in Chicago-area schools show that with the right kind of rewards, students’ achievement improved by as much as six months beyond what would be expected.

The rewards apparently provide students with an incentive to take tests more seriously. One implication is that policymakers may underestimate students’ ability in otherwise low-performing schools, according to the University of Chicago research team that conducted the experiments.

Researchers used financial rewards to boost performance for older students and non-financial rewards, such as trophies, to improve performance among younger students.

The prospect of losing a reward created a stronger desire to perform than the possibility of receiving a reward after a test, the research shows. Students who were given money or a trophy to look at while they tested performed better.

“Most importantly, all motivating power of the incentives vanishes when rewards are handed out with a delay,” says lead author Sally Sadoff, a 2010 PhD graduate in economics, who conducted the research from 2010-11 as a postdoctoral scholar.

Sadoff, now an assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, was part of a team that conducted a series of experiments involving 7,000 students in the Chicago public schools as well as in elementary and high school districts in south-suburban Chicago Heights.

The team studied the impact of incentives on students taking relatively short, standardized diagnostic tests given three times a year to determine their grasp of mathematics and English skills. Unlike other tests on incentives, the students were not told ahead of time of the rewards so they could not study but rather demonstrated the impact of the rewards themselves on performance.

The research was reported in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Sadoff was joined in her work by John List, professor in economics and one of the nation’s leading scholars of experimental economics; Steven Levitt,professor in economics at University of Chicago; and Susanne Neckermann, a scholar at the Center for European Economic Research in Germany.

The team found that elementary school students, who were given nonfinancial rewards, responded more to incentives than high-schoolers. Those students were given trophies, as they have been found to be more responsive to non-monetary rewards than older students.

Among high school students, the amount of money involved in the incentive mattered. Students performed better if offered $20 rather than $10.

“At Bloom Township High School, when we offered students $20 incentives, we found that their scores were 0.12 to .20 standard deviation points (five to sixth months in improved performance) above what we would otherwise have predicted given their previous test scores,” Sadoff says.

List points out that the results of the experiments challenged a conventional theory that giving students tangible rewards “crowds out intrinsic motivation, rendering such approaches ineffective in the short run and potentially detrimental in the long run.”

The students tested had low initial motivation to do well, and thus benefited from the rewards, List says. He adds that follow-up tests showed no negative impact of removing the rewards in successive tests.

The research helps teachers and school leaders better understand the role of rewards in school performance. Most rewards are delayed and involve a very distant horizon, such as the prospect of making a better salary as an adult as the result of better school performance, the team points out.

“The effect of timing of payoffs provides insights into the crux of the education problem that we face with our urban youth,” the authors write.

“Effort is far removed from the payout of rewards, making it difficult for students to connect them in a useful way. The failure to recognize this connection potentially leads to dramatic under-investment,” as students fail to apply themselves and policymakers don’t realize the students’ full potential.

The research was supported by a grant from the Children First Fund, the Kenneth and Anne Griffin Foundation, the Rauner Family Foundation and the Spencer Foundation.

More news from the University of Chicago:

chat6 Comments


  1. Roy Niles

    People need to have a real and tangible purpose of their own to do best what someone else wants done for some other, and often questionable, purpose.

  2. kimbee

    True, Roy. However, if a kid is rewarded for doing well in a test then they are conditioned to learn that if they are successful they will receive benefits, which is a good lesson to take into adulthood. That might sound obvious, but, as an ex-teacher I found that many kids didn’t see the point in being successful in other peoples eyes (i.e. by getting good exam results or by gaining housepoints/merits etc.). Also the more kids are rewarded the more motivated/focused they will be and they will have higher self-esteem, all these things are SO important in helping kids learn, this applies to academic and non-academic kids alike.

    When you say ‘People’ I think you’re probably 99% correct if referring to adults, but kids have lovely little malleable brains and are much better at learning new behaviours because, well they’re kids and that’s the whole point of being a kid.

  3. Roy Niles

    No, people was meant to include children. They especially need to be given a better purpose than to satisfy the teacher’s requirements. When I was in the seventh grade a century or so ago (it seems) we had State wide achievement tests. Our teacher gave us the purpose of seeing if our country school could beat the other schools in Solano County. As a result, two of us in a very small school tied for the best scores in that part of Northern California.
    One of the kids was the daughter of some Oklahoma dust bowl victims, known then as Oakies. I forget who the other one was.

  4. christian

    i think kids should be rewarded becuase they try hard for what the do and they get nothing for it i think that is wrong

  5. anthony hopkins

    that picture is fake. she’s looking at the camera people

  6. christian

    people look at the camera when there picture is tooken anthony hopkins daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We respect your privacy.