Many economists and business people argue that students will work harder and learn more if they are paid for successful learning. We pay workers for doing a good job, so why not pay students for high academic performance? Many psychologists argue that monetary rewards have immediate but not long-term benefit. When rewards are no longer given, students are less likely to continue the desired behavior than those who received no rewards.

Either approach, if taken to excess, becomes absurd. As the size of a monetary reward increases, the reward looks more and more like a Wall Street trader’s bonus. As we know from bitter experience in the past six months, such a system breeds excess. Students are more likely to play the system than to learn effectively—perhaps even cheating to obtain a reward. On the other hand, with no incentive or feedback of any kind from teachers, parents, or peers, students are less likely to devote their time to learning. If such a system were workable there would be no need for teachers: students could (and would) learn everything on their own from books, the Web, and personal experience.

Much of the debate ignores very significant differences among the diverse personalities of children. For some a word or two can provide major motivation; for others much more emphatic feedback would be required to achieve the same end. The debate also seems to ignore the degree to which a variety of factors other than direct rewards might increase students’ intrinsic interest in a subject and in understanding that subject. To be a good scientist requires curiosity as well as knowledge and hard work. Perhaps encouraging curiosity is where we could make the most effective progress. Curiosity motivates children to spend time learning facts and developing understanding of principles. It also is an important behavior characteristic of scientists.

A recent report from the National Academies indicates that informal science education can be an important factor motivating children to learn science and encouraging their interest in becoming scientists (3). Last month I described a report from the National Academies on K–8 education (4). It listed four attributes of students who are proficient in science: know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world; generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and participate productively in scientific practices and discourse. The report on informal science education adds two more attributes that are especially significant in informal settings: 

• Experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world;
• Think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science.
• These two attributes apply to everyone—children, parents, students, and adults of all ages.

The report also calls for increased interaction and cooperation among those who conceive and create museum exhibits, teachers and others in formal educational institutions, and the communities in which they work. Those of us in higher education could contribute a lot more to informal science education both locally and across the country. Pre-college educators could do the same. This might involve generating new ideas for informal science learning, consulting about design and development of new exhibits, creating curricula that include visits to science exhibits or reference to them so that students are encouraged to visit, and more structured and organized means of regular interaction with informal science educators.

Informal science education contributes a great deal to making science learning “her own fairest reward” and to encouraging more young people (and old people) to learn about and appreciate science. Let’s support our colleagues in informal science education as strongly as we possibly can.

Literature Cited

1. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 17th ed.; Kaplan, Justin, General Ed.; Little, Brown and Company: New York, 2002; p 252 attributes the quote to Silius Italicus, Punica, bk. XIII, l. 663.
2. Guernsey, Lisa. Rewards for Students Under a Microscope. New York Times, March 3, 2009, p D1 (accessed Mar 2009).
3. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, National Research Council. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits; Bell, Philip; Lewenstein, Bruce; Shouse, Andrew W.; Feder, Michael A., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, 2009 (accessed Mar 2009).
4. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8; Duschi, Richard A.; Schweingruber, Heidi A.; Shouse, Andrew W., Eds.; U.S. National Academies Press: Washington, 2007 (accessed Mar 2009).

Blogged at NSDL ExpertVoices