Syndicate content

Should we pay kids to read?

David Evans's picture
Cette page en : Français
A few weeks ago, my wife and I were reading aloud Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s newest book, a short volume entitled Dear Ijeawele, or A Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions. The eponymous fifteen suggestions are Adichie’s advice to her friend on how to raise her daughter – Chizalum – as a feminist. Here’s the fifth suggestion: “Teach Chizalum to read. Teach her to love books. The best way is by casual example. If she sees you reading, she will understand that reading is valuable.” This all seems sensible. Now, skip down to the end: “If all else fails, pay her to read. Reward her. I know this remarkable Nigerian woman, Angela, a single mother who was raising her child in the United States; her child did not take to reading so she decided to pay her five cents a page. An expensive endeavor, she later jokes, but a worthy investment.” In the margin, I scribbled, “Look at lit on this.”
 

 


How to think about it
So, does paying children to read work? Well, “work” for what? Why do we want children to read books, anyway? Adichie wants them to read to “understand and question the world.” We also want children to read books to increase their reading comprehension and to learn to love reading for both enjoyment and improved opportunities in later life.

What are the potential goods and bads of paying children to read? Guryan et al. (2016) have a nice discussion. On the good side, children may lack self-control or may lack a long-term vision of the benefits of reading and so may underinvest. Providing an incentive may help them learn to read better with a higher immediate benefit (“increasing the marginal return to education related activities”). This could happen through a direct effect (“I want the incentive and so I’ll read more”) or indirectly, through parental investments (“My parent wants is reading with me to help me get the incentive”) or peer interactions (“All my friends are doing it too!”). Perhaps they’ll discover a love of reading along the way.

On the bad side, extrinsic incentives can – in some scenarios – crowd out intrinsic motivation. In other words, offering the reward might actually reduce whatever internal interest in reading the kid has. Why? Gneezy et al. (2011) give a couple of reasons: The first is that establishing the extrinsic incentive may signal something about the activity: Reading must not be fun, or they wouldn’t be paying me to do it! The second is that the incentive could reduce the value of pro-reading preferences: “I’ve always thought reading is cool, but now everyone’s doing it because of the rewards! Maybe I need a new image.” If extrinsic incentives reduce intrinsic motivation, then kids may be less motivated to read after the program ends. Another downside is that an incentive may lead to a focus on the goal (finish the book!) at the expense of the process (enjoy the book and understand the book!). Here’s an anecdote to demonstrate, drawn from Small et al. (2009):

 
"My elementary school had a reading incentive program where, after reading a certain number of books, we could win a free personal pizza from a pizza store… I remember how some of my classmates would read (or skim!) as many books as they could get their hands on, just so that they could win the Book It certificate. After that program ended (I think around 4th or 5th grade), reading became 'boring' and 'dorky' and so on."

Of course, if kids have no motivation to read before the program, then maybe we don’t need to worry about the adverse effect of incentives on them. Skimming books is arguably better than not reading them at all, and they had no intrinsic motivation to crowd out.

$2 a book in Texas, USA
Some years ago, Fryer (2011) published results on a U.S.-based program in which second-grade students received $2 per book for up to 20 books per semester. To qualify for the $2, they had to score 80 percent on an online quiz about the book (which they could take only once). They could choose books from their school library or classroom, and there were quizzes available for about 80,000 books in total. An incentive check was written to the students three times a year. (Average payout for the year was almost $14, with a maximum of $80.) Average effects on reading achievement are tiny (0.01 standard deviations) and insignificant. Students who took the achievement test in Spanish performed worse, “entirely driven by the lowest performing students.” Of course, this might be driven by the fact that most of the books available were in English, so the incentives may have crowded out effort on Spanish. When separated out, those who took the test in English show a positive, statistically significant impact, at 0.22 standard deviations. Fryer tests for self-rated intrinsic motivation and finds no significant impact.

Books in the mail in the northeastern USA
More recently, Guryan et al. (2016) [working paper version] test incentives to read during summer break. Students going into 4th or 5th grade were randomly assigned to Project READS, Project READS + incentives, or a control group. Project READS kids received a book in the mail, together with a postcard: “The postcard asked them to list the title of the book they read, what their favorite part was, and asked them to check off each of the reading strategies they used when reading the book.” Who picked the books? Before the summer break, students attended a book fair and selected 14 (out of a collection of 115) books they were interested in. Implementers then selected the 10 books most closely match to students’ reading ability.

Kids in the incentives group earned 5 points per book and received a catalog of prizes they could buy, worth between 5 and 50 points: “The prizes included Captain Underpants books, art sets, board games, sports equipment, t-shirts and hats with local sports teams’ logos, magazine subscriptions, and science kits.” They received the catalog every week, together with the new book.

Control group kids received 10 books in the fall. So everyone got books! Reading motivation was measured at baseline using the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire.

As you can see in the table below, kids in the READS and the Incentive group both read more Project READS books than kids in the control group. But of course, the point isn’t really these books in particular, but rather to get them reading more books period. Control group kids read 4.3 books on average, whereas READS kids read 5.5 and Incentive kids read 6.3. All those differences are statistically significant, at least at 90 percent.
 

Because of a limited range in book selection, not all readers were equally well matched to the books they were sent. The biggest effects appear for those readers who were well matched to their books, with the READS kids reading 1 more total books than control and Incentive kids reading 1.7 more total books than the READS kids. The effects were smallest for kids who received books that were too hard.

Did they read better as a result of the program? No. Across a range of reading comprehension tasks, students in the treatment group did no better than students in the control group.

But wait, there’s nuance! The incentives – not the READ program by itself – actually did lead some students to better reading comprehension: the students who were more motivated to read at baseline. Likewise, there are suggestive results that the impacts on number of books read were highest for those who were motivated at baseline. So rather than motivating the unmotivated, the incentives encouraged those who would have been reading anyway.

The take away: “Rewards may not be a well-targeted strategy for increasing educational investments by less-motivated students. In addition, our findings imply that incentives could increase achievement gaps since motivation positively correlates with baseline ability.” The authors are quick to note that this is isn’t the only possible interpretation; it may be that mailing books out simply wasn’t enough, and that less motivated students needed more complementary inputs. The Fryer results also present a mixed picture, with the lowest performing students gaining the least (but that effect is confounded by language issues). Still, this evidence pushes back against the initial idea that paying students to read is a great way to get unmotivated readers into the spirit of reading.

So definitely continue to seek to inspire a love of reading among those children who haven’t caught the spark. But think twice about paying them.

Thanks to Ben Piper for pointing me to the Guryan et al. paper.

Comments

Submitted by Erik on

Great post as usual. Without the benefit of reading the articles, I am not surprised. There is obviously the issue of the "quality" of reading, which I guess is resolved by the Fryer approach although I doubt something like that would be brought to scale.

Two deep and one shallow comment.

(1) The blog post says that the goal is to get them to read more books. Period. I think you need to have some research to show that reading more books contributes to reading skills. Does it? Not a facetious quesiton at all.

(2) Is this ethical? I suppose you could argue that ethics is the second question, since there is no need to worry about if the whole approach does not work in the first place. But I am not sure that we can get off that easily. I remember what Sandel said about Homo Econimicus. (http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sandel00.pdf)

(3) Related to comment 1. Is this worth the money? With some sort of understanding of WHY we want them to read in the first place, how we can really value the program? Maybe some sort of CEA?

Thanks, Erik. On your point (1), in the blog post I say "Why do we want children to read books, anyway? Adichie wants them to read to 'understand and question the world.' We also want children to read books to increase their reading comprehension and to learn to love reading for both enjoyment and improved opportunities in later life." 

We know that kids with more exposure to books also have better reading comprehension (several studies are cited in Guryan et al.), but that is not causal. Indeed, this work suggests that -- at least in some cases -- it does (unless one believes that somehow the incentives are working through some channel other than getting the kids to read books), at least for the already motivated kids. 

On (2), I'm not sure I see the ethical problem. Are you asking if it's ethical to do an RCT on this (i.e., give incentives to some kids and not to others), or if it's ethical to pay kids to read at all. In either case, I'd be interested to hear your argument. 

On (3), I don't know, since the authors don't provide a CEA (although Fryer at least reports how much money was spent in payouts). But with the Guryan et al. study, all that money to get kids to read 1-2 extra books in a summer? I'd be surprised if a CEA were favorable.

Submitted by Peter Godwin on

Very interesting. Two comments: I think viewing payment for reading as an incentive may be a bit simplistic. Paying as an incentive can in many cases, I suggest, be only an indirect incentive – an indication of the value the parent puts on reading, which may act as a far stronger incentive: trying to emulate the parent’s values. It may also be a recognition of competing priorities on the child’s time – again reflecting parental values and the incentives that go with them Second, ‘reading a book’, while critical for our generation (I’m a baby-boomer) for all the reasons given, is now far less of key tool for children today. Far more alswimportant is the critical skill of wanting, and knowing how, to access information and use it: the internet (games, wikipaedia, social media, ebooks, etc) has transformed what information is available, and how to access it – reading books is just one tool among many. My son and daughter arguably learned as much from the computer game SIMCity, as from books.

Submitted by EFOBI Uchenna on

Very interesting comment - David. One important point that I want to point out is that pecuniary incentive for kids may have an adverse effect on other social values that the kids are supposed to be learnt.

For instance, exposing the kids to monetary motivation to read may achieve the result in the short term, but exposes the kid to the crave for monetary reward before been responsible.

Also remember that kids are at the formative stage of their lives (in terms of intrinsic values that should be upheld). Therefore the best approach to inculcate a lasting value in them will be to teach them, live up to the values, and then constantly monitor their efforts towards living up such values. Hence, they can be rewarded (with privileges and affirmation - not monetary reward) when they live up to the values and encouraged when they fall short.

Add new comment