One to two weeks later, he let the same children choose their activity. Those who'd received the expected award spent far less time drawing than those who'd never seen the fancy certificate or got it as a surprise. The promise of a reward, he concluded, had stifled that first group's pleasure in drawing. Play had become work.
Studies of college students have revealed the same effect. The University of Rochester's Edward Deci, for instance, gave two groups of undergraduates block-building puzzles to work on. One group got $1 for each solved. The other got nothing. After awhile, Deci told the students the experiment was over and that they had a few minutes to relax, do more puzzles or read. Those who were playing for money were more likely to put the puzzles down.
Rewards also tend to elicit learning that's shallow and inflexible. University of Mississippi psychologists Kenneth McGraw and John McCullers tested how rewards affected problem solving. They paid one of two groups of students who solved nine similar problems that called for pouring a specific amount of water into a jar from bottles of varying sizes. Then they asked both groups to solve a different, 10th problem that demanded inventing a new type of solution. The students who hadn't been paid solved the final problem much faster.
Those who want to improve test scores and motivate students should stop throwing money at the problem so literally. School districts and foundations should invest instead in programs that tap into and build on kids' intrinsic motivation.
One yearlong study by Washington University psychologist Richard deCharms showed just how to do that. In 1976, deCharms trained sixth-grade teachers to foster enjoyment of learning in their 600 students. He taught them to de-emphasize grades and time limits -- lowering the pressure on kids -- and distributed workbooks and other materials that promoted learning for its own sake. The teachers were also encouraged to allow students to generate hypotheses, try new ways of doing things and work ahead.
Teachers in the same district taught a control group using their usual methods. That spring, tests showed that the trained teachers' students had an increased interest in learning and were half a year ahead, according to their Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores. Six years later, a follow-up study found that the "intrinsically motivated" group also graduated from high school at a higher rate.
There are plenty of other amply researched ways to nurture and even ramp up children's desire to learn. They may not be as easy as cutting a check, but why not try them before resorting to a cash-for-performance solution that is bound to backfire?
