There is a new Best Evidence in Brief and this time I picked this interesting study which can foster quite some discussion. I’ve seen project like this before and I noticed that it can make people feeling very uncomfortable because of the ethical dimension:
Low-achieving students respond to incentives to increase their effort and engagement at school and do better than predicted on GCSE exams as a consequence (GCSEs are national high-stakes exams given at the end of secondary school in the U.K.). That is the main finding of new research published by the University of Bristol.
The project, led by Simon Burgess, Director of the Centre for Market and Public Organisation (CMPO), included more than 10,000 year 11 students (the final year of compulsory schooling leading up to the GCSE assessments) in 63 schools. The schools were recruited in the poorest parts of neighborhoods in England and were randomized to one of the following treatment groups: financial incentives, non-financial incentives, or control. Students in the incentive treatment groups earned rewards every half-term based on inputs such as attendance, conduct, homework, and classwork, rather than for outputs such as assessment results. The financial incentive rewarded students with cash up to the value of £80 per half-term, while the non-financial incentive offered students the chance to qualify for a high-value event determined jointly by the school and students, such as a sporting event or trip to a theme park.
The researchers hoped to find that the incentives would improve effort and engagement and ultimately lead to improved GCSE performance even though the results themselves carried no rewards. The analysis showed that overall the impact of either financial or non-financial incentives on achievement was low, with small, positive but statistically insignificant effects on exam performance. However, among students with low predicted GCSE grades, those in the intervention groups got better marks than students in the control group, with treatment effects stronger for the financial incentives than the non-financial incentives (particularly in science). For students who were expected to do well, and already making an effort at school, the incentives made little difference.