Sleep is the wonder drug we can all afford. It reduces stress and depression, increases concentration and academic performance, lowers blood pressure, fosters self-regulation, and provides health benefits too numerous to mention. For all these reasons, we’re excited when we find strategies that reliably help students get more sleep.
For instance, several months ago I wrote a blog post about a sleep-enhancing strategy. When students a) anticipated the problems that might interfere with their sleep, b) created plans to solve those problems in advance, and c) pledged to USE those solutions, they ended up getting more shut-eye. Even better: those changes lasted — even eight months!
I’ve found another study with an alternative approach. I’m impressed with its findings, but — honestly — unsettled by its method. Let me explain.
Gathering Data
Researchers in Pittsburg worked with over 1000 college students; before the study, those students slept an average of 6.6 hours per night.
This study tried several different strategies to extend students’ sleep time:
- personalized bedtime reminders
- feedback in the morning
- a special incentive — either immediate or delayed (more on this later)
And, of course, the researchers tracked all sorts of data:
- How much sleep did students get? How consistent were they with their bedtime?
- How much time did they spend on screens before bed?
- What happened to their grades?
- Did students’ cognitive function or emotional state change?
- How long did any changes last?
By the way: students wore a fitbit to track their sleep. In other words, the researchers didn’t rely on self-report — always an unreliable measure.
Exciting News
This research team found one approach that worked. The students who got bedtime reminders and an IMMEDIATE incentive experienced measurable gains.
- They slept almost 20 minutes more a night. That number isn’t huge, but it meant that these students were noticeably likelier to reach the researchers’ 7-hour-per-night target.
- Their grades went up a bit. The average improvement was not quite enough to move a B average to a B+ average. Grades in STEM classes rose more — roughly a third of a letter grade.
- Students reported that they spent less time on screens before bed, and dealt with stress more effectively.
- Some of these changes lasted, up to a point.
- Sleep schedules remained more consistent after the study finished.
- Students slept more than they had before the study began (but not as much as they did during the study).
- The GPA changes lasted a term — but not two terms.
Now, not all the news was good. When researchers directly measured cognitive function (specifically: math and creativity), they found no changes. And, students’ level of physical activite, depression, and anxiety didn’t change.
Given the vital importance of sleep, we could well be delighted to get even these modest benefits.
Persistent Doubts
So far, I’ve glossed over a key point: how did the researchers “incentivize sleep”?
Simple: cash. Students who slept 7 hours a night — as confirmed by the fitbit — earned $4.75 per night. And the students in the “immediate” incentive group got that money right away.
While I’m impressed with the quality of the study overall, I confess I’m unsettled by a “cash-for-behavior” approach to changing students’ sleep.
Let’s pause to think over other research-informed strategies: retrieval practice, or exercise, or fostering relatedness. We have lots of psychology or neuroscience research to explain their benefits. For that reason, they strike me as ethically uncomplicated. If they work — and especially if they align with our school’s teaching philosophy – we can go ahead and try them out.
This research creates a special case: a strategy with a dollar sign next to it. For that reason, it strikes me as ethically much more complicated — especially for younger students. If I were a school leader, I don’t think I’d be ready to pay students to sleep.
I should admit, however, the weakness in that ethical position. Schools spend substantial sums to encourage better health and study practices: advising programs, merit scholarships, wellness centers. I can predict a reasonable question: “why is it wrong to spend money on students, but not give them money directly? Why does the middleman make the expenditure ethical?” In fact, as the study’s authors point out, this incentive program got bigger results for much less money.
I don’t have training in ethics, and so I don’t have a sophisticated answer to that question. But there is a difference between spending money to help students and giving money to students. At least for now, that difference brings me up short.
Let me make the same point a different way. A few weeks ago, I found research about creating concept maps. The study struck me as persuasive, so I passed along its guidance:
Students benefit when they work on concept maps alone before collaborating with others. (Caveats apply.)
In this case, the study strikes me as persuasive, but I am NOT comfortable encouraging you to embrace its findings. Even though this approach might work, reasonable school leaders may decide it’s not the right thing to do.
To Sum Up
This study offers a strategy to help students sleep more.
At the same time, it raises bigger questions about the ultimate goals of schooling. If we want students who succeed academically and improve their overall health, we can pursue this incentive approach. If we also value students’ ability to steer their own lives and make healthy choices, we may well hesitate to distribute those cash incentives. The time we spend wrestling with that ethical question will ultimately make us better at our work.
Giuntella, O., Saccardo, S., & Sadoff, S. (2024). Sleep: Educational impact and habit formation.
