Do reading incentive programs really work? Yes - but not how we originally thought.

Erazmus, T. R. (1987). The effect of a recreational reading program on standardized test scores. Master’s research report, Olivet Nazarene University. ERIC ED294169.

98 fifth graders · Voluntary participation · Master’s research report

Erazmus compared reading-score changes among students who did and did not participate in a BOOK IT!-based recreational reading program. The report found greater gains among participants in the lowest reading group, but no significant difference in gains in the high and middle groups.

Study context: Students chose whether to participate, and the groups were selected using completed reading. Statistical reporting also has inconsistencies. This is preliminary evidence of an association, not proof that the program caused the gains.

Methods and results: pp. 8–13 (PDF pp. 11–16).

Flora, S. R., & Flora, D. B. (1999). Effects of extrinsic reinforcement for reading during childhood on reported reading habits of college students. The Psychological Record, 49(1), 3–14.

Retrospective college-student survey · Peer-reviewed journal article

Flora and Flora asked college students about childhood BOOK IT! participation, parental payments for reading, and their current reading habits. The publisher’s abstract reports no reliable difference in current reading amount or intrinsic motivation associated with those rewards, alongside favorable recollections of some childhood effects.

Study context: Recollections and self-reported habits cannot establish cause and effect. A college sample does not represent all former participants. This summary is based on the publisher’s abstract; the full article requires access.

Publisher abstract; article pp. 3–14. Subscription access.

Green, P., Kandyba, C., McDonald, C., & Stevens, T. (2000). Motivating students to read. Master’s action research project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight. ERIC ED449493.

Classroom action research · Multiple reading activities

Teachers combined BOOK IT! with classroom lending libraries, take-home books and daily reading time. They described positive participation in BOOK IT!; at one site, every student earned at least one pizza certificate.

Study context: The project cannot separate the effect of BOOK IT! from the other activities. Participation at one site is not a national success rate, an achievement gain or evidence of a lifelong reading habit.

Implementation and conclusions: pp. 41, 50, 55–56 (PDF pp. 47, 56, 61–62).

Carr, D., Gertsch, M., Hanson, S. L., Spielbauer, B., & Spielbauer, T. (1995). Improving student reading motivation through the use of oral reading strategies. Master’s action research project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight. ERIC ED386687.

Classroom action research · Oral-reading intervention

In a broader oral-reading project, School A observed a modest improvement in BOOK IT! participation. However, its researchers ultimately placed BOOK IT! among the least effective strategies and recommended discontinuing it in their local intervention.

Study context: Multiple activities, historical comparisons and difficulties with student surveys limit attribution. This local judgment does not establish that the program is ineffective everywhere.

Observations: p. 120 (PDF p. 127). Recommendations: pp. 163–164 (PDF pp. 170–171).

Korson, S. J., & Hodge, C. B. (2018). Shaping and being shaped: Exploring preservice teachers’ literacy autobiographies. In J. J. Araujo, A. Babino, N. Cossa, & R. D. Johnson (Eds.), Engaging all readers through explorations of literacy, language, and culture: The fortieth yearbook (pp. 313–329). Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. ERIC ED591953.

35 preservice teachers · Qualitative study · Peer-reviewed yearbook

Researchers examined future teachers’ literacy autobiographies. A table of reading-incentive recollections records five positive mentions of Pizza Hut’s BOOK IT! and no negative mentions. The table is labeled N = 21; the whole study included 35 participants.

Study context: Five positive mentions are not a representative alumni survey or a measure of learning. The study did not test whether BOOK IT! caused lasting reading gains.

Participants: p. 318. Table 1: p. 320 (PDF p. 335).

Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children’s engagement with text? Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1), 9–26.

Third graders · Subsequent reading persistence

Children given books as rewards, and those given no reward, showed greater subsequent reading motivation than children given token rewards.

Study context: This is evidence about reward design, not a long-term program evaluation or a test of pizza rewards.

Publisher abstract reviewed; full article requires access.

Small, R. V., Arnone, M. P., & Bennett, E. (2017). A hook and a book: Rewards as motivators in public library summer reading programs. Children and Libraries, 15(1), 7–15.

Two library systems · Youth interviews and parent/librarian surveys

Young readers described varied responses to prizes: reading more, feeling accomplishment, or enjoying a bonus to an activity they already liked.

Study context: Volunteer responses, mostly from older children, do not establish causal effects or represent all readers ages 4–12.

Full text reviewed; methods and participant findings: pp. 9–11.

Borman, G. D., Yang, H., & Xie, X. (2021). A quasi-experimental study of the impacts of the Kids Read Now summer reading program. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 26(4), 316–336. Published online December 10, 2020.

Three schools · Two districts · Matched comparison groups

Kids Read Now participants outperformed matched comparison students, with a reported average effect size of d = 0.12.

Study context: Matching is not random assignment. The result cannot isolate rewards from book access or other supports, and does not measure lifelong reading enjoyment.

Publisher abstract reviewed; full article requires access.

Suárez-Fernández, S., & Boto-García, D. (2019). Unraveling the effect of extrinsic reading on reading with intrinsic motivation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43, 579–605. Reprinted in The Economics of Books and Reading (2022), pp. 63–89.

Spanish Cultural Habits and Practices Survey, 2014–15 · Observational analysis

Reading for work or education was associated with a greater likelihood of reading for pleasure, but also less time devoted to pleasure reading. The literature review connects childhood reading with educational achievement, vocabulary and adult literacy, and discusses the roles of enjoyment, parents and teachers.

Study context: External motivation here means work or educational requirements, not prizes. This is broader context, not a test of BOOK IT! or proof of causation. The literature review summarizes other studies; the 2022 chapter is a reprint, not an independent study.

University-hosted author manuscript reviewed; literature review begins on PDF p. 3. Link to this repository copy rather than rehosting it on a commercial website.

van der Sande, L., van Steensel, R., Fikrat-Wevers, S., & Arends, L. (2023). Effectiveness of interventions that foster reading motivation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 21.

Meta-analysis · 39 studies of school-based reading-motivation interventions

Average effects were positive for affirming motivations, including interest and confidence (d = 0.38), and reading comprehension (d = 0.27). Activities designed to spark interest stood out in the analysis.

Study context: Programs varied and often combined several supports. These averages do not measure BOOK IT! or isolate rewards; evidence of lasting benefits was limited. Effect sizes are standardized differences, not percentage gains.

Open-access full text reviewed: results, discussion and Appendix 2. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.