Too many carrots: Are we preparing our students effectively for life‐long learning?

How students learn is well recognized as a critical topic in teaching and learning research, but why students learn is not as often considered. Students may struggle with course material for a variety of reasons, including weak prerequisite knowledge, relatedness of the content, mid‐semester fatigue, etc. These challenges will be replicated for our students in the professional worlds they enter, and many pedagogical designs have gaps in giving students tools to overcome these challenges. Prior to this study, we observed that providing students with explicit guidance on using tools to help them be successful in assessments did not result in an increase in the numbers of students using these tools, even when they were shown data regarding its efficacy. Students reported that their lack of engagement was because no immediate incentive (grade points) was given to practice using these tools. This is not surprising, given that most students are trained to respond to extrinsic motivators from their first exposure to formal education as children. However, a model of learning based solely on extrinsic motivation service to has little long‐term benefit to our students. It was hypothesized that giving the students the opportunity to develop self‐assessment skills in an incentivized way, would allow them to see that the act of learning has its own value, and that they would subsequently use those skills without being incentivized with short‐term rewards. Here we describe an approach to improve student performances on high‐stakes exams by completing low‐stakes assignments in which they critically self‐assess their own and their peers’ work. An active learning intervention was designed, where students worked individually, and then in teams to diagram a process. Once complete, they were asked to examine the diagrams of the other teams in the class. Then they graded their own work. Their grade was partially tied to how accurately they were able to assess their own work. So, this was tied to extrinsic motivators, even though the stakes were low. When students were given this opportunity, the average grade on the formal in‐class exam over this material improved by 14%, compared with cohorts who were given no guidance on how to study the material, and cohorts who received guidance from the instructor on how to effectively study the material. Critically however, preliminary data shows that the students integrated similar forms of self‐assessment in subsequent areas of the course as a study technique. This indicates a shift from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation in their learning, and is a highly desirable change, which will better prepare them for lifelong learning. Of note should be that when students are given oral guidance on effective methods of studying of the material, supported by data from previous cohorts, they do not perform better than students given no guidance. There are many potential implications of this, including students needing to experience evidence of efficacy first hand rather than being persuaded by anonymized data presented to them, possibly indicating limitations in their data literacy, and even a societal skepticism for scientific data. Support or Funding Information US Department of Education: Success Through Engagement and Active Learning and Mentoring ( STEAM )